| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP Mindstar
   |
Posted - 2011.05.29 22:26:00 -
[1]
The points have been tallied and the team rankings for Round 1 have now been posted here.
The full schedule for Qualifying Round 2 will be posted on Tuesday 31st May.
Cheers,
Mindstar!
-- |
|
0kroshka
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 23:43:00 -
[2]
I'm just curious what The Obsidian Front were penalized for? |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.05.29 23:58:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 29/05/2011 23:59:51
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.
|
MongWen
Xeno Tech Corp
Vanguard Imperium
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 00:00:00 -
[4]
Just for the kicks of it...
MM vs -93-
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 04:42:00 -
[5]
 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.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Ynot Eyob
Minmatar
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 07:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: 0kroshka
I'm just curious what The Obsidian Front were penalized for?
Im problally not the best to do math, but could CCP do the math to reach 35 points and how that works.
|
Sollana
Amarr
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 07:56:00 -
[7]
i agree it doesnt make sense.
for eg. CVA beat TCOIAI buy 40 points. ranked 10th
ushra'khan beat the ronin by 50 points . ranked 16th
surely the teams with the higher margin of points difference should be the higher ranked.
or do they get penalties for being slaves?
|
OhYeah
Caldari
Gray Hunters
White Noise.
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 08:25:00 -
[8]
Edited by: OhYeah on 30/05/2011 08:27:20
to sum things up
1) ranking system does penalize teams for flawless winning, as its good described here
2) rules on intentional handicaps are unclear, and your qualifying rankings doesn't count em at all, nor one way nor another
3) some (or at least one) teams get their points specified strange, a good example is The Obsidian Front who somehow shown to have 35 points for winning an opponent with 46 points killed and 20 lost
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 08:56:00 -
[9]
The handicap rule is for points left unfielded at the beginning of the match (unless it has been a result of a penalty).
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But plz hook me up with some pew pew... |
OhYeah
Caldari
Gray Hunters
White Noise.
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 09:20:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Pinky Denmark
The handicap rule is for points left unfielded at the beginning of the match (unless it has been a result of a penalty).
I believe we pretty much understand what this rule is for. What id like to point out is that
"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."
seems not to coincide with
"If a team chooses to field less than 100 points, unfielded points count towards the opponent's score.".
Moreover, win like this with 49 points fielded doesn't have any effect on ranking by far.
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 10:01:00 -
[11]
Originally by: OhYeah
Originally by: Pinky Denmark
The handicap rule is for points left unfielded at the beginning of the match (unless it has been a result of a penalty).
I believe we pretty much understand what this rule is for. What id like to point out is that
"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."
seems not to coincide with
"If a team chooses to field less than 100 points, unfielded points count towards the opponent's score.".
Moreover, win like this with 49 points fielded doesn't have any effect on ranking by far.
The max was 50 for prequalifying trials.
However I do agree that the standings seem to be in error as it does not appear this was taken into account for those fielding less than 50.
"Victory Conditions
1. During a match, a team scores points for each enemy ship it kills, equal to the tournament points value of that ship. The team that has scored the most points at the conclusion of the match, or that destroys the entire opposing team, is the winner.
2. THIS RULE NO LONGER APPLIES: Any enemy ship sent home prior to the match via banning (Place & Tactics point 5) will NOT count towards points scored. EG. If you send home a ship worth 18 points, the most you can score is 82 points (plus 25% if you win).
3. If a team chooses to field less than 100 points, unfielded points count towards the opponent's score.
* This rule applies to the 50 point limit during Pre-Qualifying, not 100 points."
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 10:21:00 -
[12]
I was thinking about this :)
After more thought I think it was counted in :).
It means regardless of how many actual points you brought your fleet was counted as 50 points of ships for scoring.
At least I believe that's what they did so I don't think an error was made now :).
|
Ynot Eyob
Minmatar
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 10:27:00 -
[13]
Originally by: El'Niaga
I was thinking about this :)
After more thought I think it was counted in :).
It means regardless of how many actual points you brought your fleet was counted as 50 points of ships for scoring.
At least I believe that's what they did so I don't think an error was made now :).
^^ Look abov all 4 teams i refered to have 50 points on the field, something is wrong
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 10:33:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
Originally by: El'Niaga
I was thinking about this :)
After more thought I think it was counted in :).
It means regardless of how many actual points you brought your fleet was counted as 50 points of ships for scoring.
At least I believe that's what they did so I don't think an error was made now :).
^^ Look abov all 4 teams i refered to have 50 points on the field, something is wrong
I was just commenting on the point on those bringing fewer.
There seems some oddities hopefully they'll relook at the numbers since so many questions. I don't fully understand how they come up with the points :(. I assume if we all knew the formula we could recheck the numbers.
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 11:05:00 -
[15]
Your final points are based on how much you kill, not what you have left, so lets take your two examples here.
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
White Noise vs Majesta Empire
White Noise have 16 point left, Majesta Empire 4 - White Noise gets 57.5 points
Both teams fielded 50 points, so there's no handicapping to play with here. White Noise killed 4 of Majesta's ships, for a total of 46 points, and Majesta killed 4 of White Noise's ships for a total of 34 points, thus White Noise gets the win, plus 25% bonus giving them a grand total of 57,5 points
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
The Obsidian Front vs Capital.Punishment
Obsidian have 30 point left, Capital Punishment 4 - The Obsidian Front gets 35 point!??!
Again, both teams fielding a total of 50 points. The Obsidian Front killed 3 ships worth 28 points, while Capital Punishment killed 2 ships worth 20 points total. Adding the 25% win bonus again, gives The Obsidian Front a grand total of 35 points.
Hope this helps clear up how the points system is working. Regarding the intentional handicapping, ie. bringing fewer than max points, you are only awarded "bonus" points if you bring fewer points than your opponent and you win the match. For example, your team brings 47 points versus a team of 49 points, if you win the match (either on points or by killing all the opponents ships), you will be awarded an extra 2 points for the handicap.
|
|
Narkotik
Thundercats
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 11:16:00 -
[16]
Following that rule, we as rzr fielded 49 worth of points and our opponents 50,we won the match, doesnt that give us an extra 1 point? ( something like 50+25%+1 )
|
OhYeah
Caldari
Gray Hunters
White Noise.
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 11:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra
Your final points are based on how much you kill, not what you have left, so lets take your two examples here.
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
The Obsidian Front vs Capital.Punishment
Obsidian have 30 point left, Capital Punishment 4 - The Obsidian Front gets 35 point!??!
Again, both teams fielding a total of 50 points. The Obsidian Front killed 3 ships worth 28 points, while Capital Punishment killed 2 ships worth 20 points total. Adding the 25% win bonus again, gives The Obsidian Front a grand total of 35 points.
Well, it does make sense now, as we know that only 3 ships worth 28 point were blown by The Obsidian Front. Its just a confusing battlereport left stating that there were 4 ships worth 46 points. 
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 11:42:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Narkotik
Following that rule, we as rzr fielded 49 worth of points and our opponents 50,we won the match, doesnt that give us an extra 1 point? ( something like 50+25%+1 )
You should indeed, your total points earned should be 63,75 instead of 62,5. I have just gone over the list another time, and it turns out that we missed this on the Paisti Syndicate versus Transmission Lost, Paisti also brought just 49 points and won. I will redo the ranking system and update the ranking list on the Tournament website
|
|
Tjalve Myr'Aelyn
IMORTALS
The Obsidian Front
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 12:07:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Tjalve Myr''Aelyn on 30/05/2011 12:12:43
Edited by: Tjalve Myr''Aelyn on 30/05/2011 12:12:13
(edit: typo)
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra
Your final points are based on how much you kill, not what you have left, so lets take your two examples here.
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
White Noise vs Majesta Empire
White Noise have 16 point left, Majesta Empire 4 - White Noise gets 57.5 points
Both teams fielded 50 points, so there's no handicapping to play with here. White Noise killed 4 of Majesta's ships, for a total of 46 points, and Majesta killed 4 of White Noise's ships for a total of 34 points, thus White Noise gets the win, plus 25% bonus giving them a grand total of 57,5 points
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
The Obsidian Front vs Capital.Punishment
Obsidian have 30 point left, Capital Punishment 4 - The Obsidian Front gets 35 point!??!
Again, both teams fielding a total of 50 points. The Obsidian Front killed 3 ships worth 28 points, while Capital Punishment killed 2 ships worth 20 points total. Adding the 25% win bonus again, gives The Obsidian Front a grand total of 35 points.
Hope this helps clear up how the points system is working. Regarding the intentional handicapping, ie. bringing fewer than max points, you are only awarded "bonus" points if you bring fewer points than your opponent and you win the match. For example, your team brings 47 points versus a team of 49 points, if you win the match (either on points or by killing all the opponents ships), you will be awarded an extra 2 points for the handicap.
I'm sorry, but ...
... we not killed three ships, we killed four ships!
We have shot down one Battleship (18), two Battlecruiser (2x 13) and one Destroyer (2). Which sums up to 46, not 28.
It seems that the calculation with 28 points did not include the Battleship kill?!
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 12:20:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tjalve Myr'Aelyn
Edited by: Tjalve Myr''Aelyn on 30/05/2011 12:12:43
Edited by: Tjalve Myr''Aelyn on 30/05/2011 12:12:13
(edit: typo)
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra
Your final points are based on how much you kill, not what you have left, so lets take your two examples here.
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
White Noise vs Majesta Empire
White Noise have 16 point left, Majesta Empire 4 - White Noise gets 57.5 points
Both teams fielded 50 points, so there's no handicapping to play with here. White Noise killed 4 of Majesta's ships, for a total of 46 points, and Majesta killed 4 of White Noise's ships for a total of 34 points, thus White Noise gets the win, plus 25% bonus giving them a grand total of 57,5 points
Originally by: Ynot Eyob
The Obsidian Front vs Capital.Punishment
Obsidian have 30 point left, Capital Punishment 4 - The Obsidian Front gets 35 point!??!
Again, both teams fielding a total of 50 points. The Obsidian Front killed 3 ships worth 28 points, while Capital Punishment killed 2 ships worth 20 points total. Adding the 25% win bonus again, gives The Obsidian Front a grand total of 35 points.
Hope this helps clear up how the points system is working. Regarding the intentional handicapping, ie. bringing fewer than max points, you are only awarded "bonus" points if you bring fewer points than your opponent and you win the match. For example, your team brings 47 points versus a team of 49 points, if you win the match (either on points or by killing all the opponents ships), you will be awarded an extra 2 points for the handicap.
I'm sorry, but ...
... we not killed three ships, we killed four ships!
We have shot down one Battleship (18), two Battlecruiser (2x 13) and one Destroyer (2). Which sums up to 46, not 28.
It seems that the calculation with 28 points did not include the Battleship kill?!
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.
|
|
IceGuerilla
Amarr
Poseidon's Wingmen
Perihelion Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 12:23:00 -
[21]
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.
Seriously, how have you not automated this yet? |
salty Milk
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 12:51:00 -
[22]
Edited by: salty Milk on 30/05/2011 12:51:12
Originally by: IceGuerilla
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.
Seriously, how have you not automated this yet?
no computer could work out ccp's ridiculous set of rules that often contradict each other.
1=1
0=0
but at ccp 1 sometimes = 0
but even with ccp's insane nonsense nothing can stop Dark Taboo from being literally the worst alliance ever in the history of always
|
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 13:19:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 13:22:24
Thank you for looking into the rankings.
I'm still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
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.
Doing well in the first round gives you a more-difficult fight in the second round. Why is this?
|
Sollana
Amarr
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 13:48:00 -
[24]
good to see the ccp alliance team drop the ball with the standings....
i'm sure they will get it right after 5 patches and 2 expansions, and 2 server rebuilds :P
cant blame us, you made the rules then didnt follow them.
|
Sollana
Amarr
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 13:50:00 -
[25]
Originally by: salty Milk
Edited by: salty Milk on 30/05/2011 12:51:12
Originally by: IceGuerilla
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.
Seriously, how have you not automated this yet?
no computer could work out ccp's ridiculous set of rules that often contradict each other.
1=1
0=0
but at ccp 1 sometimes = 0
but even with ccp's insane nonsense nothing can stop Dark Taboo from being literally the worst alliance ever in the history of always
/points to calculator in UI....
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 14:09:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 13:22:24
Thank you for looking into the rankings.
I'm still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
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.
Doing well in the first round gives you a more-difficult fight in the second round. Why is this?
We are using the swiss tournament system for the pre-qualifiers, which pairs you up with a team of similar track record of your own. This is a system that allows you to have a chance to make the tournament even if you lost in the first round, but still favours the better teams. If you win the first round and played a team that lost the first round, the chances of a huge blowout is a lot greater (if as you suggest pair rank 1 with rank 64 etc). Doing it this way gives teams that may have drawn a very good team in the first round, a chance to redeem themselves with a high points win in the second round.
A team that wins both their matches is pretty much guaranteed to advance into the group stages, but this will put a good number of teams on one win and one loss. This is where the points accumulated comes in. Let's say that your team killed 30 points in the first match, but still lost, however in your second match you kill the entire opposing team so you gain 62,5 extra points for a total of 92,5 points, you will be at the top of the list to still make it into the tournament. Of course, teams loosing their first round without a single kill has a very low chance of making it into the group stages, but it could still be done, depending on how the points work out in the second round.
|
|
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 14:27:00 -
[27]
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 13:22:24
Thank you for looking into the rankings.
I'm still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
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.
Doing well in the first round gives you a more-difficult fight in the second round. Why is this?
We are using the swiss tournament system for the pre-qualifiers, which pairs you up with a team of similar track record of your own. This is a system that allows you to have a chance to make the tournament even if you lost in the first round, but still favours the better teams. If you win the first round and played a team that lost the first round, the chances of a huge blowout is a lot greater (if as you suggest pair rank 1 with rank 64 etc). Doing it this way gives teams that may have drawn a very good team in the first round, a chance to redeem themselves with a high points win in the second round.
A team that wins both their matches is pretty much guaranteed to advance into the group stages, but this will put a good number of teams on one win and one loss. This is where the points accumulated comes in. Let's say that your team killed 30 points in the first match, but still lost, however in your second match you kill the entire opposing team so you gain 62,5 extra points for a total of 92,5 points, you will be at the top of the list to still make it into the tournament. Of course, teams loosing their first round without a single kill has a very low chance of making it into the group stages, but it could still be done, depending on how the points work out in the second round.
Thank you for your explanation.
Remember, though, this system is a double-edged sword. While the Swiss system makes it easier for teams that did poorly in the first match to do well in the second (and advance to the next round), it also is easier for teams that did well in the first match to do poorly in the second (and not advance to the next round). I think it is a horrible system, but thank you again for the explanation.
|
Sollana
Amarr
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 14:36:00 -
[28]
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 13:22:24
Thank you for looking into the rankings.
I'm still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
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.
Doing well in the first round gives you a more-difficult fight in the second round. Why is this?
We are using the swiss tournament system for the pre-qualifiers, which pairs you up with a team of similar track record of your own. This is a system that allows you to have a chance to make the tournament even if you lost in the first round, but still favours the better teams. If you win the first round and played a team that lost the first round, the chances of a huge blowout is a lot greater (if as you suggest pair rank 1 with rank 64 etc). Doing it this way gives teams that may have drawn a very good team in the first round, a chance to redeem themselves with a high points win in the second round.
A team that wins both their matches is pretty much guaranteed to advance into the group stages, but this will put a good number of teams on one win and one loss. This is where the points accumulated comes in. Let's say that your team killed 30 points in the first match, but still lost, however in your second match you kill the entire opposing team so you gain 62,5 extra points for a total of 92,5 points, you will be at the top of the list to still make it into the tournament. Of course, teams loosing their first round without a single kill has a very low chance of making it into the group stages, but it could still be done, depending on how the points work out in the second round.
but doesnt it help if you get the standing correct in the first place, PAisti and Razor should be on top because they got a handicap bonus right?
check this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1518841
|
|
CCP Zirnitra
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 14:40:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Sollana
Originally by: CCP Zirnitra
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 30/05/2011 13:22:24
Thank you for looking into the rankings.
I'm still wondering about this:
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
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.
Doing well in the first round gives you a more-difficult fight in the second round. Why is this?
We are using the swiss tournament system for the pre-qualifiers, which pairs you up with a team of similar track record of your own. This is a system that allows you to have a chance to make the tournament even if you lost in the first round, but still favours the better teams. If you win the first round and played a team that lost the first round, the chances of a huge blowout is a lot greater (if as you suggest pair rank 1 with rank 64 etc). Doing it this way gives teams that may have drawn a very good team in the first round, a chance to redeem themselves with a high points win in the second round.
A team that wins both their matches is pretty much guaranteed to advance into the group stages, but this will put a good number of teams on one win and one loss. This is where the points accumulated comes in. Let's say that your team killed 30 points in the first match, but still lost, however in your second match you kill the entire opposing team so you gain 62,5 extra points for a total of 92,5 points, you will be at the top of the list to still make it into the tournament. Of course, teams loosing their first round without a single kill has a very low chance of making it into the group stages, but it could still be done, depending on how the points work out in the second round.
but doesnt it help if you get the standing correct in the first place, PAisti and Razor should be on top because they got a handicap bonus right?
check this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1518841
I have already stated in this very thread that we know there was a miscalculation and that we are re-doing it. Please read the entire thread before commenting.
|
|
Hoshi
The Einherjar Corporation
|
Posted - 2011.05.30 14:44:00 -
[30]
If the team did that bad in the second rond then mayby it didn't deserve to qualify. They need to prove the second rond that the first rond win wasn't just because they got a lucky draw against a joke team.
That said I think 1vs32 2vs31 and 33vs64 etc woud be better.
----------------------------------------
"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason." |
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.
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 02:47:00 -
[61]
Quote:
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.
CCP, a response, of any sort, would be great. Taking into consideration that it's less than 2 days before the next matches, I would hope we could get the points straightened out. It won't change the matchups for this weekend but it could change the outcome of either team advancing. Also it would clear up the question for future tournaments.
With sincerest thanks,
Squeaky Wheel
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
Takakura Hirohito
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 04:20:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Quote:
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.
CCP, a response, of any sort, would be great. Taking into consideration that it's less than 2 days before the next matches, I would hope we could get the points straightened out. It won't change the matchups for this weekend but it could change the outcome of either team advancing. Also it would clear up the question for future tournaments.
With sincerest thanks,
Squeaky Wheel
This is an old rule. In previous tournaments, CCP set precedence by only awarding the point to the winning team. There is no way a team should be given a point for losing to a team that fielded fewer than 50 points. Just ask CCP to clarify the rule before the next tournament.
|
Marcus Grisbius
Gallente
Mom 'n' Pop Ammo Shoppe
|
Posted - 2011.06.03 05:00:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Marcus Grisbius on 03/06/2011 05:04:31
Edited by: Marcus Grisbius on 03/06/2011 05:01:39
Originally by: Takakura Hirohito
Originally by: Marcus Grisbius
Quote:
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.
CCP, a response, of any sort, would be great. Taking into consideration that it's less than 2 days before the next matches, I would hope we could get the points straightened out. It won't change the matchups for this weekend but it could change the outcome of either team advancing. Also it would clear up the question for future tournaments.
With sincerest thanks,
Squeaky Wheel
This is an old rule. In previous tournaments, CCP set precedence by only awarding the point to the winning team. There is no way a team should be given a point for losing to a team that fielded fewer than 50 points. Just ask CCP to clarify the rule before the next tournament.
Well, I think that's what I'm trying to do. Get attention so someone from CCP actually speaks to this. If there is a thread from previous tournaments, I'm not finding it. I do appreciate your response, but I would like an official response too.
If the rule is there it should affect the losing team and the winning team. It's stated plainly that the opponent is to receive the points for unfielded ships. If the loser doesn't receive the points, then the winner really shouldn't either. There is a second round to fight for both teams. The winner already gets a bonus for winning regardless of fielded ships. Both teams are subject to ships killed points and both should receive the unfielded ship points.
For example:
Team A decides to bring out 45 points worth of ships to add to handicap. They don't want to field another frigate because they know it will get blown up and don't want to give the opponent a chance to score a kill. They kill an assault frigate from Team B without getting any more points and Team B can't break the tank on the rest of the fleet.
Team A decides to do this again and succeeds in the second round of qualifying against Team C. Kill 1 assault frigate and spot 5 points of handicap. Since they won twice, they automatically qualify to advance, having a score of 20 points total. Had they fielded the extra 5 points and lost the ship they would not have won either match, since Team B and C both would have killed more.
You can change the point values but keep the same idea situations with more points between the teams. The ruling as written should apply to both. Just because a team loses does not mean they should be excluded from the bonus points. The rules should apply equally to both sides.
Certainty of death... little chance of success... what are we waiting for? - Gimli, son of Gloinn |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |