|
Post by calicojack on Sept 14, 2007 8:30:34 GMT -5
Usually for these pods, the ones that go through are determined by random coin flip.
It's fantastically crappy to fly out of the tournament that way, but on the flipside, if you had just won your games, you wouldn't be in that position. Looking at it differently, someone's going on to the next match with a win/loss record of 2-2. Not exactly fair either. If you've lost two games, even a coin toss to stay in the tournament is more than you ought to have gotten normally.
Given how there are always a number of signed up players who aren't playing much, not having pods would be much, MUCH slower, and far less fun because in warlocks, a best-of-1 isn't a great indicator of skill. Winning a pod is much better.
So, I say: If there's no clear indicator (A beats B beats C beats A), I wouldn't even go for the meritorious argument. Take Dubber's 6 turn win by charming enemy into surrender. Is this a clear win? I'd actually venture that it wasn't. It was a random freak occurrence. I might hand Dubber the benefit of the doubt in that situation because it's a ballsy play - but then, assuming the loser knew what he was doing, so is submitting a P into a charm. We could discuss the merits of the specific situation (was the risk worth taking? etcetera), but I'm just using this as an example to highlight how subjective and mutually exclusive 'meritorious play' arguments go.
If it was up to me, if there's an A->B->C->A situation, I'd throw a die to decide which one goes through.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 14, 2007 8:40:44 GMT -5
An idea that's occured to me for the next time I do this, to have a similar style opening round that works better, is to have a fake swiss event: everybody plays four simultaneous games against four randomly selected opponents, the games are scored with the same system as now (2 win 1 tie 0 loss) and the highest scores go through. This has the advantage that there can only be one tie that you actually need to break, and that tie can be broken by summing opponent scores as in a regular swiss tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 14, 2007 9:03:19 GMT -5
I agree with surial. Random is ultimately fairer than arbitrary decision factors. Definitely for wildcards and less so but still true for tied winners. If I was tied, I'd rather end up losing on qualifying to a dice roll than to my opponent having killed someone in seven turns when my shortest game was nine, or something.
I'm also not sure about the "A beats B and C" thing. There's the argument that A is better because he beat them, but then he must also have lost to someone crap that they both beat. I know it's a standard decision factor in some situations but still...
Swiss tournament intro is a good idea for the next tourney.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 14, 2007 9:09:44 GMT -5
Random is ultimately fairer than arbitrary decision factors. I agree completely, and that's another reason I've refused to use any of the arbitrary decision factors suggested. 'Subjective' however does not equal 'arbitrary'. If I'm at all unsure that my subjective decisions are responsible and deliberate, I'll have to revert either to random choice or to simply not choosing someone to go on.
|
|
|
Post by calicojack on Sept 14, 2007 10:22:02 GMT -5
Rycchus, I agree it's not perfect, but, on the whole, that's better than coin flip. Especially in warlocks where sometimes ... happends.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 14, 2007 10:44:51 GMT -5
CalicoJack, I don't know which conversation you're following up on. What, exactly, is better than coin flip?
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Sept 14, 2007 11:16:47 GMT -5
3-way melee!
but that doesn't really determine the better dueler...
|
|
|
Post by calicojack on Sept 14, 2007 15:46:03 GMT -5
Yeah, Rycchus, rereading that, that was very unclear.
I meant that when A has beaten both B and C but is equal in points to both, that A automatically 'wins'. This is not the paragon of fair, but it's in my opinion fairer than random.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 14, 2007 15:50:27 GMT -5
Mm. I know it's a standard way to do things. I was just pointing out that in order for this to have happened, A has lost to two people that B and C both beat (i.e. easy people).
I'm not sure whether it's fairer than random or not. If you lose two games, surely you're lucky to be getting through on any kind of merit.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 14, 2007 17:24:13 GMT -5
Random is ultimately fairer than arbitrary decision factors. I agree completely, and that's another reason I've refused to use any of the arbitrary decision factors suggested. 'Subjective' however does not equal 'arbitrary'. If I'm at all unsure that my subjective decisions are responsible and deliberate, I'll have to revert either to random choice or to simply not choosing someone to go on. What do you mean by subjective, Slarty? Do you mean which games were closer in your opinion, that sort of thing?
|
|
morzas
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 30
|
Post by morzas on Sept 14, 2007 20:29:12 GMT -5
Looking at my pod, the only way I'll be able to stay in this tournament is if I beat Twobee, Twobee beats Nawglan and Twobee force surrenders Dummiesday, putting all of us at 2 points. If this unlikely event were to occur, what would determine the one that gets to go on?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 14, 2007 20:42:47 GMT -5
I think I'm done talking about this, because
1) the questions show no sign of ending, and
2) they are becoming more specific about certain game situations
The whole point of this being done subjectively is that it won't influence the way games are played at all. And there's no reason for it to. I've said more than enough on this subject. The players who perform best will advance; judgment will be fair; that's all.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 15, 2007 19:12:49 GMT -5
Take Dubber's 6 turn win by charming enemy into surrender. Is this a clear win? I'd actually venture that it wasn't. It was a random freak occurrence. I might hand Dubber the benefit of the doubt in that situation because it's a ballsy play - but then, assuming the loser knew what he was doing, so is submitting a P into a charm. We could discuss the merits of the specific situation (was the risk worth taking? etcetera), but I'm just using this as an example to highlight how subjective and mutually exclusive 'meritorious play' arguments go. As the subject of debate, I probably shouldn't chime in. But I will as I'm an opinionated git. Charming a P to surrender one's opponent is absolutely a "clear win." Nothing random about it. Now back in the day, in the first Warlocks Tourney ever, we played a real man's game: confusion FF. I drew WOGHD in the first round and defeated him on a "random freak occurrence." I DSF'd him and he chose to throw a P on one hand anyway; he was confuse-surrendered for his temerity in that one. The Charmed surrender is completely a legitimate win.
|
|
|
Post by calicojack on Sept 15, 2007 21:27:03 GMT -5
Of course it's a legitimate win. But does it have more merit compared to, say, someone losing a 50/50 ParaFoD finale?
|
|
|
Post by freesoul on Sept 16, 2007 2:37:04 GMT -5
Well that's that whole problem with the debate. A win is a win... someone played the odds.. and lost. It's the same as a poker game... if you made the right play and lost... you still lose. As simple as that.
I really think that the only fair way of picking a winner in a split decision is to play more matches, but we all started this tourney with the understanding that Slarty would decide all tie breakers. Personally, i would be happier with panel of three masters to decide the winners... but i decided to play this tourney with the understanding that Slarty would be the final say in the "gray" scenarios." I think we all are bound to slarty's judgment, no matter what we argue "what is fair".
EDIT: drunk posting!
|
|