These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Games for next weekend.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-07-02 15:01:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
I just wonder about something. IC has created a ranking list here, but what determines the positions of this list? There are 23 teams that have won a complete shutout victory in the past weekend. All of them should be tied, unless speed is a determining factor. But then the list is inaccurate as the Red vs. Blue game was one of the faster ones on Saturday, achieving a shutout in around 3-4 minutes.

From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.

And if there is a tea-breaking situation then, just apply the speed into the mix. The faster you did it, the higher your rank. Plain and simple. Oh, and in my opinion, the teams for next week should not be teamed up like rank 1 vs rank 2, but rank 1 vs 32.

I loved watching the ATX event of last weekend and although the commentators tend to be "a little" biased at times, it's still a job well done in general.
CCP Veritas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2 - 2012-07-02 15:08:42 UTC
The Rules wrote:
Pre-Qualifying 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 determine ranking position.

If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher.
The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better.
The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better.

As odd as it may sound, the situation you mention comparing RvB and Hun is accurate. There are still a host of teams that tie given the above rules - I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out. They're a little tired so it might take some time.

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-07-02 15:41:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Thanks for the quote Veritas, but erhm..

CCP Veritas wrote:
I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out.


Can you tell the "rules people" that they need to drastically change the set-up for this? It just doesn't make sense to participate then. If you are a good team and you see you are winning already having defeated a few ships of the opponent, then the only just strategy at this point should be:

"Ok, let's mop up the rest of them and be done with it".

and not this.

"uhm, guys, we are doing great, but we are winning too fast, we need to sacrfice a few tacklers and perhaps one dps ship to give the opponent more points, which will give us a better rank when we do defeat them at the end of the game".

That is nuts. When it's a war, it's a war. You don't care about points you need to sacrifice in order to get a better rank. If my team can defeat you now and make sure that I don't lose a ship, then that really tells something about how my team has performed. Not this mumbo-jumbo about losing a few ships in order to achieve the highest rank.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-07-02 15:51:11 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Thanks for the quote Veritas, but erhm..

CCP Veritas wrote:
I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out.


Can you tell the "rules people" that they need to drastically change the set-up for this? It just doesn't make sense to participate then. If you are a good team and you see you are winning already having defeated a few ships of the opponent, then the only just strategy at this point should be:

"Ok, let's mop up the rest of them and be done with it".

and not this.

"uhm, guys, we are doing great, but we are winning too fast, we need to sacrfice a few tacklers and perhaps one dps ship to give the opponent more points, which will give us a better rank when we do defeat them at the end of the game".

That is nuts. When it's a war, it's a war. You don't care about points you need to sacrifice in order to get a better rank. If my team can defeat you now and make sure that I don't lose a ship, then that really tells something about how my team has performed. Not this mumbo-jumbo about losing a few ships in order to achieve the highest rank.


however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play. Many many MANY ppl have complaned about a lack of excitement being a large concern. I was under the impression that this (awarding tie breaks on action on the field) would motivate teams that were a little on the fence with points to rethink their setups outside full tank and full ecm.

While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it.

I has all the eve inactivity
Jude Lloyd
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-07-02 15:56:01 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Thanks for the quote Veritas, but erhm..

CCP Veritas wrote:
I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out.


Can you tell the "rules people" that they need to drastically change the set-up for this? It just doesn't make sense to participate then. If you are a good team and you see you are winning already having defeated a few ships of the opponent, then the only just strategy at this point should be:

"Ok, let's mop up the rest of them and be done with it".

and not this.

"uhm, guys, we are doing great, but we are winning too fast, we need to sacrfice a few tacklers and perhaps one dps ship to give the opponent more points, which will give us a better rank when we do defeat them at the end of the game".

That is nuts. When it's a war, it's a war. You don't care about points you need to sacrifice in order to get a better rank. If my team can defeat you now and make sure that I don't lose a ship, then that really tells something about how my team has performed. Not this mumbo-jumbo about losing a few ships in order to achieve the highest rank.


however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play. Many many MANY ppl have complaned about a lack of excitement being a large concern. I was under the impression that this (awarding tie breaks on action on the field) would motivate teams that were a little on the fence with points to rethink their setups outside full tank and full ecm.

While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it.



IMO This tournament is off to a great start. Thanks CCP for being so awesome.

I'm back!
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-07-02 16:23:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Karl Planck wrote:

however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play.


That may or may not be the case, the problem with the current rule-set is that it is unclear, not logical, and opens up a slippery slope of debatable "tactics" by teams to pre-arrange their game in a way they can benefit the most out of it.

Quote:
While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it.


The problem is that although tie-breaking may or may not be a major concern in the group stage or playoff-games, the current rule-set does determine the next team for the second round of qualifying games. If the current system is used, I'd expect teams to number-crunch to determine the best course of action. And since when is a deathmatch tournament about who is the best at math? It should be about who can blow up the opponent the fastest way and loses no ships on his/her own team.

Yarrrr, mateys...
Nevigrofnu Mrots
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2012-07-02 16:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevigrofnu Mrots
Singulis Pacifica wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:

however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play.


That may or may not be the case, the problem with the current rule-set is that it is unclear, not logical, and opens up a slippery slope of debatable "tactics" by teams to pre-arrange their game in a way they can benefit the most out of it.

Quote:
While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it.


The problem is that although tie-breaking may or may not be a major concern in the group stage or playoff-games, the current rule-set does determine the next team for the second round of qualifying games. If the current system is used, I'd expect teams to number-crunch to determine the best course of action. And since when is a deathmatch tournament about who is the best at math? It should be about who can blow up the opponent the fastest way and loses no ships on his/her own team.

Yarrrr, mateys...


since rules are not present / written before all of this started, creating new ones to fit this problem may be problematic and will raise discussions. Keep it simple: If 2 or more teams have the same points, rank them using a lottery draw and carry on. Next year think about this a little better and have rules written down before the first match starts.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#8 - 2012-07-02 16:58:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
CCP Veritas wrote:
The Rules wrote:
Pre-Qualifying 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 determine ranking position.

If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher.
The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better.
The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better.

As odd as it may sound, the situation you mention comparing RvB and Hun is accurate. There are still a host of teams that tie given the above rules - I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out. They're a little tired so it might take some time.


By my calculations, Hun ****** it all up by being the odd man out...

First Place: Hun Reloaded
Second Place: Tie between: Tribal Conclave and The Space Police
Third Place: Tie between: Heretic Nation and Fatal Ascension
Fourth Place: Tie between: Raiden and Agony Empire
Fifth Place: Tie between Exodus and Alpha Volley Union
Sixth Place: Tie between Against All Authorities and Pandemic Legion.
Seventh Place: Tie between twelve teams...
-- Northern Coalition
-- The G0dfathers
-- Ev0ke
-- Goonswarm Federation
-- The Gorgon Empire
-- Dead Terrorists
-- DarkSide.
-- Verge of Collapse
-- Red vs Blue
-- THE R0NIN
-- Team Liquid
-- Suddenly Spaceships.

Eighth Place: Out of Sight...
Ninth Place: Mildly Intoxicated
Tenth Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N.
11th: Gypsy Band
12th Elysian Empire
13th: Fearless
14th: Nulli Secunda
15th: Rotte Kapelle
16th: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
17th: Black Legion
18th: Perihelion Alliance
19th: Sleeper Social Club
20th: Babylon 5.
21rst: Tie -- Shadow Cartel and The Kadeshi,
22nd: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy
23rd: Tie -- Kill it with fire and Romanian-Legion
24th: Red Overlord
25th: Choke Point
26th: Tie -- Lone Star Partners and Exiled Ones
27th: Tie -- Dark Taboo and Bruderschaft der Pilger
28th: Tie -- Why so Serious and Dystopia Alliance
29th: Pure Madness
30th: Tie between
-- Capital Punishment
-- No hOles Barred
-- The Veyr Collective
-- Razor Alliance
-- Brick Squad
-- The Fourth District
-- Wormholes Holders
-- Test Alliance Please Ignore
-- Dirt Nap Squad
-- Solar Fleet
-- Manifest Destiny
-- Get Off My Lawn
31th: C.V.A.
32rst: Noir. Merc Group

*edit*
Match Length could be used to fairly sort out the Currently tied teams... otherwise it's moreless arbitrary....
Also, we have no hard feelings towards hun, but if they had placed a little worse, then the tied teams would be facing each other...
Added in Red Overloard
CCP Veritas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#9 - 2012-07-02 17:07:21 UTC
You're missing RED.OverLord, just above Choke Point I believe.

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online
Corine Noas
Galaxy in danger proj.
#10 - 2012-07-02 17:23:30 UTC
Singulis Pacifica wrote:

From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.

You might wanna try to look from the other side:
say, Team A defeats team B 50:0
Team C defeats team D 50:20
This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B.
This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A.

It's all theoretically of course, bcuz practically it's all much complicated. But a clear and fair theoretical approach is enough and I believe CCP did use it.
Hope made the point clear for you.
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-07-02 17:56:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Singulis Pacifica
Corine Noas wrote:

You might wanna try to look from the other side:
say, Team A defeats team B 50:0
Team C defeats team D 50:20
This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B.



Agreed

Corine Noas wrote:

This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A.



Not necessarily. Team A defeated an opponent in a total shutout, C won the victory, but at a loss of some ships. This either means that, indeed C faced a tougher opponent, or A is better skilled than C being able to win in a shutout.

In your example, the teams should be ranked like this:

1st: Team A
2nd: Team C
3rd: Team D
4th: Team B

The rankings are not determined based on the individual skill of A or C. They are based on purely one fact alone: the outcome of the game. Regardless of whether D is a tougher opponent than B, it matters that A won without a single loss of their ships, while C did lose some ships in the process of achieving victory.

So a strategy of putting in some ships that act as cannon-fodder to be defeated by the opponent is better than a team that is dedicated to win without losing any ship on their side? That makes no sense.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#12 - 2012-07-02 17:58:46 UTC
Corine Noas wrote:
Singulis Pacifica wrote:

From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.

You might wanna try to look from the other side:
say, Team A defeats team B 50:0
Team C defeats team D 50:20
This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B.
This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A.

It's all theoretically of course, bcuz practically it's all much complicated. But a clear and fair theoretical approach is enough and I believe CCP did use it.
Hope made the point clear for you.


I think the current ranking system is fine.... And i Agree with Corine... The only potential problem I see, is if the cut-off between winners and losers occurs in some tie-zone place....

It's a tough decision:
In the current form, if a team wins but lost a bunch of ships, they are rewarded for it. This encourages action, and at this point in time, system gaming is impractical (for the winners). Win/Loss record orders rankings before point totals, and given the even number of teams, you're fighting an opponenet that has the same Win/Loss record as you.

Example: If a current winner takes another win, it doesn't matter what ranking their current opponent has, they will move forward becuase they have two wins. If a current loser takes on another current loser, it doesnt matter how many points they give their opponent, as they will be in the 2xL bracket, and won't have a rank above 16!!

There is one way to game this system.... If you are a current winner, you could make a pact with your next opponent to guarantee that no matter who wins, one side will sacrifice 20+ pts before "winning" the match. This will assure both of you progress... Now, it's up to the winner to adhere to your terms, and CCP already said that if they "suspect" metagaming on this level they will ban both teams from the tourney.... Given the fact teams in the winner brackette are already well positioned to move ahead anyways, I don't think this is something most will risk!!!

If you're a loser, you need to win by points, as the rank of you're opponent will be 16 or less, meaning you won't win any tie-breakers with them....
Manofwarr
Sons of Khorne
#13 - 2012-07-02 18:04:04 UTC
Lots of :::WORDS::: for just trying to say rank based on POINT DIFFERENTIAL.....
Zumra
Hideaway Hunters
The Hideaway.
#14 - 2012-07-02 18:12:41 UTC
Let me get this straight, so you are saying a good way for teams to be ranked high is to kill everything except 1 ship they are confident they can get easier, move all other ships out of the combat area to blow up, then kill the last ship? It really makes no sense for teams to be penalized for winning 50:0, the other team not getting anything does not mean they were worse then a losing team that got some points, it could mean this winning team was just that much better.
Ophey Won
Inviolable
Omnivores
#15 - 2012-07-02 18:14:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ophey Won
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


By my calculations, Hun ****** it all up by being the odd man out...

1st Place: Hun Reloaded
3rd Place: Tie between: Tribal Conclave and The Space Police
5th Place: Tie between: Heretic Nation and Fatal Ascension
7th Place: Tie between: Raiden and Agony Empire
9th Place: Tie between Exodus and Alpha Volley Union
11th Place: Tie between Against All Authorities and Pandemic Legion.
23rdh Place: Tie between twelve teams...
-- Northern Coalition
-- The G0dfathers
-- Ev0ke
-- Goonswarm Federation
-- The Gorgon Empire
-- Dead Terrorists
-- DarkSide.
-- Verge of Collapse
-- Red vs Blue
-- THE R0NIN
-- Team Liquid
-- Suddenly Spaceships.

24th Place: Out of Sight...
25th Place: Mildly Intoxicated
26th Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N.
27th: Gypsy Band
28th Elysian Empire
29th: Fearless
30th: Nulli Secunda
31st: Rotte Kapelle
32nd: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
33rd: Black Legion
34th: Perihelion Alliance
35th: Sleeper Social Club
36th: Babylon 5.
38th: Tie -- Shadow Cartel and The Kadeshi,
39th: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy
41std: Tie -- Kill it with fire and Romanian-Legion
42nd: Red Overlord
43rd: Choke Point
45th: Tie -- Lone Star Partners and Exiled Ones
47th: Tie -- Dark Taboo and Bruderschaft der Pilger
49th: Tie -- Why so Serious and Dystopia Alliance
50th: Pure Madness
62nd: Tie between
-- Capital Punishment
-- No hOles Barred
-- The Veyr Collective
-- Razor Alliance
-- Brick Squad
-- The Fourth District
-- Wormholes Holders
-- Test Alliance Please Ignore
-- Dirt Nap Squad
-- Solar Fleet
-- Manifest Destiny
-- Get Off My Lawn
63rd: C.V.A.
64th: Noir. Merc Group

*edit*
Match Length could be used to fairly sort out the Currently tied teams... otherwise it's moreless arbitrary....
Also, we have no hard feelings towards hun, but if they had placed a little worse, then the tied teams would be facing each other...
Added in Red Overloard



Fixed the places for you. 64 teams competed.
Jude Lloyd
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-07-02 18:57:53 UTC
Ophey Won wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


By my calculations, Hun ****** it all up by being the odd man out...

1st Place: Hun Reloaded
3rd Place: Tie between: Tribal Conclave and The Space Police
5th Place: Tie between: Heretic Nation and Fatal Ascension
7th Place: Tie between: Raiden and Agony Empire
9th Place: Tie between Exodus and Alpha Volley Union
11th Place: Tie between Against All Authorities and Pandemic Legion.
23rdh Place: Tie between twelve teams...
-- Northern Coalition
-- The G0dfathers
-- Ev0ke
-- Goonswarm Federation
-- The Gorgon Empire
-- Dead Terrorists
-- DarkSide.
-- Verge of Collapse
-- Red vs Blue
-- THE R0NIN
-- Team Liquid
-- Suddenly Spaceships.

24th Place: Out of Sight...
25th Place: Mildly Intoxicated
26th Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N.
27th: Gypsy Band
28th Elysian Empire
29th: Fearless
30th: Nulli Secunda
31st: Rotte Kapelle
32nd: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
33rd: Black Legion
34th: Perihelion Alliance
35th: Sleeper Social Club
36th: Babylon 5.
38th: Tie -- Shadow Cartel and The Kadeshi,
39th: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy
41std: Tie -- Kill it with fire and Romanian-Legion
42nd: Red Overlord
43rd: Choke Point
45th: Tie -- Lone Star Partners and Exiled Ones
47th: Tie -- Dark Taboo and Bruderschaft der Pilger
49th: Tie -- Why so Serious and Dystopia Alliance
50th: Pure Madness
62nd: Tie between
-- Capital Punishment
-- No hOles Barred
-- The Veyr Collective
-- Razor Alliance
-- Brick Squad
-- The Fourth District
-- Wormholes Holders
-- Test Alliance Please Ignore
-- Dirt Nap Squad
-- Solar Fleet
-- Manifest Destiny
-- Get Off My Lawn
63rd: C.V.A.
64th: Noir. Merc Group

*edit*
Match Length could be used to fairly sort out the Currently tied teams... otherwise it's moreless arbitrary....
Also, we have no hard feelings towards hun, but if they had placed a little worse, then the tied teams would be facing each other...
Added in Red Overloard



Fixed the places for you. 64 teams competed.


Lol Ophey, we're tied. Big smile

I'm back!
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#17 - 2012-07-02 19:16:21 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Corine Noas wrote:
Singulis Pacifica wrote:

From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.

You might wanna try to look from the other side:
say, Team A defeats team B 50:0
Team C defeats team D 50:20
This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B.
This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A.

It's all theoretically of course, bcuz practically it's all much complicated. But a clear and fair theoretical approach is enough and I believe CCP did use it.
Hope made the point clear for you.


I think the current ranking system is fine.... And i Agree with Corine... The only potential problem I see, is if the cut-off between winners and losers occurs in some tie-zone place....

It's a tough decision:
In the current form, if a team wins but lost a bunch of ships, they are rewarded for it. This encourages action, and at this point in time, system gaming is impractical (for the winners). Win/Loss record orders rankings before point totals, and given the even number of teams, you're fighting an opponenet that has the same Win/Loss record as you.

Example: If a current winner takes another win, it doesn't matter what ranking their current opponent has, they will move forward becuase they have two wins. If a current loser takes on another current loser, it doesnt matter how many points they give their opponent, as they will be in the 2xL bracket, and won't have a rank above 16!!

There is one way to game this system.... If you are a current winner, you could make a pact with your next opponent to guarantee that no matter who wins, one side will sacrifice 20+ pts before "winning" the match. This will assure both of you progress... Now, it's up to the winner to adhere to your terms, and CCP already said that if they "suspect" metagaming on this level they will ban both teams from the tourney.... Given the fact teams in the winner brackette are already well positioned to move ahead anyways, I don't think this is something most will risk!!!

If you're a loser, you need to win by points, as the rank of you're opponent will be 16 or less, meaning you won't win any tie-breakers with them....


On second thought, the last team defeated for the winners bracket could be any rank below 48... and the last team defeated for the losers bracket will be rank 16 or lower.... The losers in the winners have no way to mess with their loser's ranking... but the winners of the losers do..... interesting...
CCP Veritas
C C P
C C P Alliance
#18 - 2012-07-02 19:36:17 UTC
Official rankings are up:
http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/rankings

Schedule will come later.

CCP Veritas - Technical Director - EVE Online
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2012-07-02 19:50:26 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
Official rankings are up:
http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/rankings



Thanks, but a disappointment. May I ask what the determining factor was to rank the tie-breakers? The speed in which they completed the game against the opponent?

So suppose you would use a simple point-differential system (thanks Manofwarr) instead of your current debatable version.

Then you would get for the winning teams:

1st Place: Tie between twelve teams (record is 62.5 - 0)
-- Northern Coalition
-- The G0dfathers
-- Ev0ke
-- Goonswarm Federation
-- The Gorgon Empire
-- Dead Terrorists
-- DarkSide.
-- Verge of Collapse
-- Red vs Blue
-- THE R0NIN
-- Team Liquid
-- Suddenly Spaceships.

13th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 2.0)
-- Against All Authorities
-- Pandemic Legion.

15th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 4.0)
-- Exodus
-- Alpha Volley Union

17th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 6.0)
-- Raiden
-- Agony Empire

19th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 10.0)
-- Heretic Nation
-- Fatal Ascension

21st Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 14.0)
-- Tribal Conclave
-- The Space Police

23rd Place: Hun Reloaded (record is 62.5 - 16.0)
24th Place: Out of Sight... (record is 60.0 - 2.0)
25th Place: Gypsy Band (record is 57.5 - 0)
26th Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. (record is 57.5 - 10.0)
27th Place: Mildly Intoxicated (record is 57.5 - 20.0)
28th Place: Elysian Empire (record is 52.5 - 0)
29th Place: Fearless (record is 46.25 - 16.0)
30th Place: Nulli Secunda (record is 41.25 - 16.0)
31st Place: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad (record is 37.5 - 8.0)
32nd Place: Rotte Kapelle (record is 37.5 - 12.0)


And for the losing teams:


33rd Place: Black Legion (record is 20.0 - 57.5)
34th Place: Babylon 5. (record is 16.0 - 41.25)
35th Place: Sleeper Social Club (record is 16.0 - 46.25)
36th Place: Perihelion Alliance (record is 16.0 - 62.5)

37th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 14.0 - 62.5)
-- Shadow Cartel
-- The Kadeshi,

39th Place: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy (record is 12.0 - 37.5)
40th Place: Red Overlord (record is 10.0 - 57.5)

41st Place: Tie between two teams (record is 10.0 - 62.5)
-- Kill it with fire
-- Romanian-Legion

43rd Place: Choke Point (record is 8.0 - 37.5)

44th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 6.0 - 62.5)
-- Lone Star Partners
-- Exiled Ones

46th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 4.0 - 62.5)
-- Dark Taboo
-- Bruderschaft der Pilger

48th Place: Pure Madness (record is 2.0 - 60.0)

49th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 2.0 - 62.5)
-- Why so Serious
-- Dystopia Alliance

51st Place: Noir. Mercenary Group (record is 0 - 52.5)
52nd Place: Curatores Veritatis Alliance / CVA (record is 0 - 57.5)

53rd Place: Tie between twelve teams (record is 0 - 62.5)
-- Capital Punishment
-- No Holes Barred
-- The Veyr Collective
-- Razor Alliance
-- Brick Squad
-- The Fourth District
-- Wormholes Holders
-- Test Alliance Please Ignore
-- Dirt Nap Squad
-- Solar Fleet
-- Manifest Destiny
-- Get Off My Lawn

Please note:
For tie-breakers, one could use the time in which the game was finished, awarding the faster team a higher rank than the slower team. If this is no longer measurable (don't see why not, there should be videos of each game), then the luck of the draw would suffice, I suppose.

I would also suggest putting rank 1 vs rank 32, rank 2 vs rank 31 etc. This is in favor of the rank 1 vs rank 2 for a simple reason. If the latter is used, it does not reward a team that has performed very well in the first game. If you would put teams which have won by a complete shutout against each other, then one of them has a chance of facing elimination from the contest (there can only be one winner after all). If the top 12 in this case would not face each other, but teams ranked 21 and down to 32, you are more likely to see most of them (the top 12) advance to the group stage. In a contest where there can only be one winner, it should implement a "to the winner go the spoils" set-up. If you did very well in your first game, then the chance is high that you will advance. It's that simple.
Gods Coldblood
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-07-02 20:08:21 UTC
CCP Veritas wrote:
Official rankings are up:
http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/rankings

Schedule will come later.


You have made my day by giving us Darkside Big smile

My Youtube Channel: Here
123Next page