These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Rules intentional handicap

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#21 - 2012-07-08 14:04:53 UTC
While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.

Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.
Tony Two Bullet
Monocle Madness
#22 - 2012-07-08 14:35:54 UTC

I think the handicap system is a pretty dynamic addition.

Those kinds of decisions definitely make the opening qualifiers more interesting in terms of posturing.

CEO  Monocle Madness ~ Mega-Insane Lotteries for the Mentally Unstable http://www.monoclemadness.com
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#23 - 2012-07-08 15:38:38 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.

The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now.


The language hasn't changed from 9. At all.

:edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5

ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language.

Still wonky ;p

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#24 - 2012-07-08 15:56:51 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.

The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now.


The language hasn't changed from 9. At all.

:edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5

ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language.

Still wonky ;p


Since we didnt get to fly AT9 that would explain it for us since we were AT4-8.

Btw, ignore my previous post. Its the last team you won against.
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club
#25 - 2012-07-08 16:32:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.

The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now.


The language hasn't changed from 9. At all.

:edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5

ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language.

Still wonky ;p


http://community.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t8/format.asp

same in 8, it's never changed as far as I remember

edit; the only possible change would be teams no showing being considered as fielding 50 rather than zero
Hoshi
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#26 - 2012-07-08 16:37:57 UTC
Ladel Teravada wrote:
While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.

Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.

This is how the swiss system is supposed to work. Losing early and winning late means you most likely won against a weaker opponent than someone who did opposite.

In chess they have even taken this to an extreme with progressive counting that give less points for later wins.

"Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason."
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#27 - 2012-07-08 17:25:44 UTC
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.

The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now.


The language hasn't changed from 9. At all.

:edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5

ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language.

Still wonky ;p


http://community.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t8/format.asp

same in 8, it's never changed as far as I remember

edit; the only possible change would be teams no showing being considered as fielding 50 rather than zero


We literally rarely change rules.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#28 - 2012-07-08 17:26:10 UTC
Ladel Teravada wrote:
While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.

Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.


We make a review at the end of every tournament.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#29 - 2012-07-09 15:53:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Ladel Teravada wrote:
While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.

Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.


This is not necessarily true...

Rankings are ordered:
1.) W/L record.
2.) Point Total
3.) The rank of the team you last defeated.
4.) The rank of the team you last lost to.

If you win your first match, and lose your second match, the last team you defeated's rank can be anywhere between 16-64.
If you lose your first match, and win your second match, the last team you defeated's ranked somewhere between 48-64.

Many Top 32 teams had tie breakers below 48 (are tie breaker is placed 60).

And given the results, there was only one tie breaker that mattered:

Test --- (Tie breaker 57) <-- Lost the first, won the second, and moved forward....
Revolution --- (Tie Breaker 62) <-- Won the first and lost the second match....

Also, this ranking makes sense, imagine there is a superstrong team A, and a mediocre team B.
Team 1: defeated B in the first round, and lost to team A in the second round...
Team 2: lost to team A in the first round, but defeated team B in the second round...

Assuming the same points scored against Team A & B each round, then Team 1 and Team 2 are in exactly the same position.... There is no direct advantage to winning first or second...
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#30 - 2012-07-09 20:11:36 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Ladel Teravada wrote:
While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.

Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.


This is not necessarily true...

Rankings are ordered:
1.) W/L record.
2.) Point Total
3.) The rank of the team you last defeated.
4.) The rank of the team you last lost to.

If you win your first match, and lose your second match, the last team you defeated's rank can be anywhere between 16-64.
If you lose your first match, and win your second match, the last team you defeated's ranked somewhere between 48-64.

Many Top 32 teams had tie breakers below 48 (are tie breaker is placed 60).

And given the results, there was only one tie breaker that mattered:

Test --- (Tie breaker 57) <-- Lost the first, won the second, and moved forward....
Revolution --- (Tie Breaker 62) <-- Won the first and lost the second match....

Also, this ranking makes sense, imagine there is a superstrong team A, and a mediocre team B.
Team 1: defeated B in the first round, and lost to team A in the second round...
Team 2: lost to team A in the first round, but defeated team B in the second round...

Assuming the same points scored against Team A & B each round, then Team 1 and Team 2 are in exactly the same position.... There is no direct advantage to winning first or second...


As I said in a later post I noted this too.
Previous page12