|
|
Post by nawglan on Aug 19, 2008 20:51:35 GMT -5
Everybody gets 650 pts.
Players in the tourney are worth their elo / 10.
As many members on your team as you can fit in 650 points.
I can keep track of it if yall wanna do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Aug 19, 2008 21:23:09 GMT -5
Should we do that? or should we make groupings based on ELO at a certain date? ie: 1975+ - 40 1925-75 - 35 1875-1925 - 30 1825-1875 - 25 1750-1825 - 20 1650-1750 - 15 otherwise - 10 Which at the moment would bring out a total of: 1. ExDeath 40 2. BioLogIn 40 3. succat 35 4. awall 30 5. Toyotami 30 6. Vermont 30 7. xade 30 8. Freesoul 20 9. Rasteroid 20 10. Rasper 20 11. Dubber 20 Give 100 points to allocate, and BAM!  I think Bio should be expensive, he should be 20/100 more expensive than Freesoul, not 20/625 more expensive...  Further to that, under 1800, it becomes a bit of a crap-shoot/smokie factor... specially when you can pull in 2 smokies, or Bio. |
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Aug 19, 2008 22:19:12 GMT -5
Hmm. Kinda gets you the same thing, cept under yer scheme I could scoop up an elite team of 10 low 1600 players. Which I must say might just be the ticket. Deaths are worth 3 pts. Wins 2, ties/losses 0. *grin*
|
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Aug 19, 2008 22:50:15 GMT -5
Seriously though. We should include categories like "Health Lost" and "Health", something akin to penalty minutes/game time for hockey. Mebby even have Turns be a category. Mix it up some.
|
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Aug 20, 2008 1:20:42 GMT -5
*Bio is trying his best to worth less* XD
|
|
|
|
Post by xade on Aug 20, 2008 3:10:22 GMT -5
Hmm. Kinda gets you the same thing, cept under yer scheme I could scoop up an elite team of 10 low 1600 players. Which I must say might just be the ticket. Deaths are worth 3 pts. Wins 2, ties/losses 0. *grin* Exactly. It's shouldn't be "Pick the 4 best" vs "pick 5 random ones" I like the idea oh 3 elite, 4 mid-strength, or 5 with a mix of all kind of strategy play. Points for things other than a win... that would be interesting... then player style could come into your selections a bit more... *rubs chin* |
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Aug 20, 2008 23:00:27 GMT -5
I don't think there's anybody who wants to keep track of stats like health lost for every player.  Xade's system looks like the best thus far. However, we could wait until we have all the entrants and then create a "curve" based on expected wins for each player. With an average Elo field of 1800, a 1900 player should go about 8-4, whereas a 1700 player should go 4-8, meaning you could rate a 1700 at around 20 points and a 1900 at 40, with 2000 at 60 and 1600 at 10. But it all depends on the curve of the players in the event, in my opinion. Elo ratings are relative. |
|
|
|
Post by xade on Aug 21, 2008 0:29:57 GMT -5
You're relative!
:razz:
|
|
