Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 24, 2007 11:46:54 GMT -5
Maybe this has been answered, but how is Round 2 scored? One point per game won? Or do you get a point for advancing?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 24, 2007 12:37:50 GMT -5
Slarty's original example makes it clear. It's two points per win, so if you don't advance but get 2-1 you get two points whereas if you lose 2-0 then you get zero.
|
|
|
Post by toyotami on Sept 30, 2007 8:19:03 GMT -5
Gosh darn...only me and Vermont have all our surviving picks still going strong.
I think the rest of the points spread is significantly affected by the draw. The move from Quarterfinals to Semi's will mean alot of players lose their picks as 8 goes down to 4. Alot of points will dry up. Those with picks staggered in each corner of the draw stand the best chance (if they have good picks, of course).
How many players have their 3 picks in 3 seperate corners?
Sadly, my 3 are crowded in 2 corners, the fourth spot occupied by myself, who i naturally want to win.
Which is a stinker because i have been genuinly rooting for my picks (though i suppose if they beat me, my 4 fantasy points will take the sting off defeat...?)
Anybody else facing similar dilemmas?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 30, 2007 8:47:25 GMT -5
How many players have their 3 picks in 3 seperate corners? Sadly, my 3 are crowded in 2 corners, the fourth spot occupied by myself, who i naturally want to win. The chances of having 3 picks in 3 separate corners is not high: specifically, it's 37.5%. I'm not convinced this actually makes a significant difference, though. While it does guarantee one of your warlocks will cease earning points after a certain round, it also guarantees that one of them will advance! So it is only a bad thing to have two face each other to the degree that their chances of pulling through are both higher than 50%. This is perhaps a legitimate frustration if you chose two high-skill warlocks and they met in round 2. But even as of round 3, the remaining players are almost all high-skill and none are so high, I think, that I'd give them more than 60% odds against most of the others. Even supposing you chose two like that and that they met in round 3, you'd have a 36% chance of doing worse than if they didn't meet, and a 16% chance of doing better. I do find it interesting, that people complained about the impact having multiple high-tier warlocks in the same pod had on their fantasy teams initially, but actually it hasn't had that much of an impact. Toyo and Xade in pod 1, and Spacca, Reds and (possibly) Zugz in pod 6, Rycchus in pod 2... all players who finished with less than 8 points due to "packed matchups" yet are now among the highest value team members. For most warlocks, the impact of randomization on value seems to be +/- 2 points, more or less. Nearly all warlocks of the same point cost have similar scores within this range, with a few exceptions caused by external factors -- Awall due to the inescapable flaws of the point-costing system, Zugzwang due to slow play, etc. In any event, I'm confident that the fantasy contest measures skill more than it measures chance, though it certainly has elements of both.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 30, 2007 13:57:46 GMT -5
I don't think people were worried that having multiple high-tier warlocks in the same pod would lower the win totals for the group stage, but rather that it would knock people out. I considered Vermont a good player, and Derfel good value - both of whom stood a fair chance of winning if they'd been in group three or four, say, but in group one didn't have a chance.
Anyway, I do think the chance is an enjoyable part of it.
On another note, I can't believe how much ExDeath's team's dropped. Considering most people haven't even finished the last 16 games yet, 5 to 1 is quite a sharp drop.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 30, 2007 23:40:23 GMT -5
I think ExDeath put together quite a good team. But I think he _significantly_ overvalued one or two players on the team, which led him to pass up other (better) players and also restrict the remaining players based on points available.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 1, 2007 5:52:45 GMT -5
I've actually noticed all the 5-player teams have dropped to 1. I wonder if their "managers" allowed for this or if they expected two or three to get through. The question is whether the points accumulation in round one will make up for the fact that they have much less points to gather in subsequent rounds. Personally, I don't think it will.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 1, 2007 6:46:05 GMT -5
I was hoping for (at this point) 2 players to make it through of my 5. That didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 1, 2007 8:24:08 GMT -5
It's basic math. There is only one warlock costed at below 25 points who is still in the brackets, and only two costed at 25. Therefore, five warlock teams are unlikely to have more than one warlock still in it -- though theoretically they could have three left if their 4th and 5th members were 10 pointers. The 10 pointers weren't too popular though, so I think people with that game plan decided to go with 4 warlock teams instead.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Oct 1, 2007 8:53:24 GMT -5
yep, Reds is still going strong for me... Rasper did well, but for his price, I was hoping he would make it past Awall, but it's not disappointing for him not to... Derfel and Vermont both got screwed by their groupings... Had they been in other groups, it certainly could have been a different ball-game for the dreamcoat. And then there was dummiesday...
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 1, 2007 9:12:38 GMT -5
Wow. I feel so... so... flattered?
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 1, 2007 9:42:48 GMT -5
So, I have this pathological need to reply to people who claim they were "screwed" and explain why they, in fact, were not.
My honest estimation suggests there are about 10 players in the tournament who would be very likely to beat Vermont and Derfel, and another 4 or 5 with whom they are on fairly equal ground. On average, there will be 1-2 of those first 10 players in each pod, so the fact that they were in a pod with two of them is not a freak occurance whereby their pod "screwed" them; it's one of several moderate possibility outcomes. Yes, they might have done better in another pod; but complaining that your team did worse "because" each member did not have a maximally optimal placement is kind of ridiculous. Particularly when you had another warlock of similar caliber (Rasper) who got a "great" placement, a much more unlikely one, that catapulted him up to 8 points.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Oct 1, 2007 10:01:40 GMT -5
(Just playing devil's advocate here.)
There should therefore by your estimation be 1-2 players of equal or better status than their own. They each got 3 of these.
Also,. about the points thing - most people were choosing Warlocks that they believed to be undervalued on your points system. So even if statistically the 5-player teams "oughtn't" have got through, I was wondering if the team owners were expecting this, or if they thought that they would.
I'm getting more convinced that 4 Warlocks is the best team size. You need enough players to collect a greater quantity of points between them, but not to the extent that they're spread so thinly they don't get any at all. Prior to the tournament starting, I would probably have said a team of 5 was better than a team of 3, but now I think the team of 3 would be a better choice.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Oct 1, 2007 10:14:31 GMT -5
No -- my estimation is that there would typically be 1-2 players of better status. If you want "equal or better" you need to include Derfel and Vermont as well (or rather, whichever one we aren't doing the odds on), which brings the total to 16 players out of 34 (again, not counting the one we're doing the odds on) -- nearly half the tournament. At that point you would expect 2-3 players on average, who were equal or better; weighted more towards 2, but with 3 not being uncommon.
I agree about 4 warlocks (which is why that was my team size). I'm not sure if that would still be true if I had assigned point values based on my own estimations of skill rather than all the other factors; in that case, you wouldn't have had these underpriced warlocks like yourself and Awall that everybody seized on in the contest. At that point you might be able to do as well or better with five 20 pointers or three high value warlocks.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Oct 1, 2007 10:18:23 GMT -5
Uh, why do you keep using me as an example? I didn't get "screwed" or "pooched" or whatever. I lost. Skill and ELO aside, any Warlock can beat any Warlock on any given day given the right circumstances. One of the best things about this game is that at the beginning of any match, both players bow and start on equal footing. The rest is up in the air.
As for the Fantasy Team standings, I understand that history is the way to weight for points or drafting, but remember - rookies can sometimes come in and blow your whole plan to whack.
|
|