|
Post by xade on Sept 16, 2007 5:13:24 GMT -5
meh... use the wildcards if possible, otherwise, I'm happy with a flip of the coin... (If it comes down to it...)
|
|
grep
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 7
|
Post by grep on Sept 16, 2007 13:35:27 GMT -5
|
|
reds
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 31
|
Post by reds on Sept 17, 2007 2:11:01 GMT -5
My 2 cents. First the pods should be set using seeding by elo. if you have 7 pods then you break up the players, elo ranked 1-7 go into one hat, 8-14 into the second hat etc. Then you draw one name from each hat to create each pod. That would prevent having 3 of the top 7 elo ranked players in the same pod (see my pod for example yet still create some randomness, and still give average ranked players a decent chance (though they would need to beat someone good, and not just be the least crummy player in their pod). I really think that is a much more important change than the wild card system and look forward seeing it in next years tourney ;D As for the wild card, I think there is no perfect system. I guess what Slarty is doing is as good as any, though I would probably add a strength of schedule (like the NFL does) which looks at who you played. If a group of 3 below average players, and 2 bad players met, and the 3 players tied with 3 points by playing average, that group should not send 3 players to the next round just because they all have 3 points. I guess my opinion is strongly influenced by the fact that I am a big believer in Elo and what it represents.... Just my 2 cents (and slarty just so the record is clear I am willing to give much more than a 2 cent donation to your subjective judgment fund ) Reds
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 17, 2007 4:57:57 GMT -5
yeah sorry bout that vermont, i missed a killing opportunity on around turn 40 with a storm (i had sw) and self charm as pointed out by Rycchus. i just lost concentration, n didnt no u cant magic mirror FoD. good luck in the tourney guys, n personally i'm backing a spacca/toyo/freesoul/xade semi. i'd like a brit to win tho Laxen
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 17, 2007 5:21:42 GMT -5
You certainly can mirror the FoD... But if you're para'ed, you just can't get if of... You played pretty well though... full credit...
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 17, 2007 5:26:49 GMT -5
oh, i thought u could but was informed differently after game... i shoulda gone for fear then that woulda bin a 50/50 right? well played n good recovery!
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 17, 2007 5:39:10 GMT -5
I was a 50/50 either way... If I had para'ed you, and you Feared me, you would have won. If I para'ed me and you Feared me, I would have won. If I para'ed you and and you clapped (which happened), I win, if I para'ed me and you clapped, you win. So yeah, it was a 50/50... The shot before also had 50/50 tendencies as well (plus the storm that will never be mentioned...), so basically, I was extremely lucky to win that game...
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Sept 17, 2007 5:55:50 GMT -5
I think choosing who advances based on Elo is a horrible idea, it defeats the purpose of a tournament which is simply to find out who's playing better on any given day (month). In fact, if anything, I believe the lower-Elo player should advance if they performed the same as a high-Elo player against the same opponents.
Both of these are terrible ideas. However, they both beat the flip of a coin. That's the worst idea of all as it also has nothing to do with how you played in the tournament, or how you've ever played.
My solution? Force the players to agree on a time to play and finish their tiebreaker game.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 17, 2007 9:32:03 GMT -5
I couldn't have put it better, ExDeath. I'm a big fan of Elo as well, but it has no place deciding the outcome of a tournament.
I like your solution, though I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement.
One thing I am realizing, in this round, is that time limits suck in warlocks. Time limits make people stressed and unhappy and create more work for the organizer. But if you don't have them, things can take forever. I have to imagine Citanest will agree with me when I say that a round that lasts three months is a big headache. So I'm wondering if what's necessary is just having time limits that are a little more generous. Hypothetically speaking (nothing will change at this juncture), three weeks would be a truly unnecessarily long time for this round, but it would have simplified things for me and de-stressed players like Reds and Zugz who were away for a few days.
|
|
|
Post by calicojack on Sept 17, 2007 11:07:03 GMT -5
Most games are done by now. I didn't feel too stressed, and eventhough I started late, it was all wrapped up with 4 days to spare.
The iron fist approach works better. 10 days is the right ballpark. Maybe up it to 14 to round it off, but that's more than enough even to accomodate 5 days of vacation or other inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 17, 2007 12:11:57 GMT -5
It depends. For me, it was plenty of time. But I know some people don't get as regular access to the computer as others. Logging in twice a day is still fairly frequent but unless you catch people live, that's only 20 moves and won't guarantee you finish your game. Then again, most people seem to have done all right. ExDeath, your suggestion of a tiebreaker works fine for a two-way tie, but not so well for a three-way. Also, xade, Laxen wouldn't have won if he got the 50-50 right. He would have just escaped the FoD. (Unless you threw it anyway on the mirror... in which case I should totally play you more )
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 17, 2007 12:26:14 GMT -5
Keep in mind that 20 moves = 40 turns. Few players below, say, 1800 Elo regularly have games last that long.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 17, 2007 15:48:04 GMT -5
Oh right that's true.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 17, 2007 16:18:06 GMT -5
I think if people are worried about a time limit, 14 days is about as fair as you can get. If you can't finish a game within that sort of time limit, you really shouldn't sign up for the tournament in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Sept 17, 2007 16:20:56 GMT -5
I agree with derfel. Dang, I just agreed with derfel. And now I'm talking to myself. What is this world coming to?
|
|