|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 22, 2007 23:25:13 GMT -5
The wild card determination was not based on outcome. Outcome was what determined the other 15 places.. the wild card is by definition not based on outcome.
The wild card was based on quality of play throughout all tourney matches. I too was initially expecting the para into P/P to remove Zugz from the running; however, on examining the other players' games I found that they all had much greater numbers of similarly (if less blatantly) egregious mistakes.
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 23, 2007 6:17:36 GMT -5
uh, guys, does it really matter whether zuggy deserved 2 go thru? he's thru, so let's just sit back n watch all the remainin warlocks slug it out for our entertainment
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 23, 2007 8:03:23 GMT -5
It's not a matter of deserving to go through or not. Heck, I've said I wouldn't be my first choice to go through either, so it's certainly not about that. But I'm seeing someone who really only won one game (and a pretty "easy" win too, looking at it) but didn't finish two other games due to slow play, and lost the other match. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 23, 2007 8:11:01 GMT -5
I'm getting really sick of all this complaining. I guess next time I won't do wild cards at all and I can pass out byes. I deplore byes, particularly in a top 16, but it beats this incessant complaining.
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 23, 2007 8:27:50 GMT -5
hear hear slarty derfel, i'm not saying that ur sayin u deserved 2 go thru, but u do still seem pretty hacked off. all i'm sayin is to accept the decision
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 23, 2007 8:44:47 GMT -5
It's not that I'm complaining. I think maybe this discussion of mine is being taken in a different way than I'm intending it.
What I'm saying is that *I* don't see why he would advance. I'm assuming that it's some flaw in *my* judgement of the games, or something *I* personally can't see in his play. I'm not saying that Slarty was incorrect in letting him through, I'm suggesting that *I*, because *I* am a less experienced and less skilled player, can not see the merit in his play. That's why *I* am asking to be shown the reasons for his advancing on merit.
Get *ME*?
(Sorry, *I* started with the emphasis, and just couldn't seem to stop)
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 23, 2007 9:56:59 GMT -5
Derfel, I apologize if it sounded like I was singling you out; I didn't mean to. Rather I would observe that, while more people have commented that they are glad to see Zugz get the wild card than not, the handful who have a problem with it keep commenting on it over and over again.
I've been pretty clear about what I based my decision on; yet I keep hearing comments that my decision was unfair based on things I explicitly did not consider: points earned, games won and lost, slow play, caliber of play outside the tournament, opponent strength, even opponent Elo. (And nobody complained about the decision not being based on these things, I should point out, until AFTER the wild card spot was handed out.)
So yeah, when I explain why I made a decision and then hear over and over that it's unfair for reasons that have nothing to do with it, I consider that "complaining."
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 23, 2007 10:00:51 GMT -5
Fair enough. I'll try my best to understand the differences in the games. It was never a question about your judgement, only a question of mine.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 23, 2007 14:10:19 GMT -5
There are only a few hecklers, Slarty, and mostly they're just arguing in a grudging-acceptance kind of way, rather than an out-and-out battle. I think people mostly just want their grievances to be heard, and perhaps justified. We all agreed we'd accept your judgement and I don't think there's anyone here who genuinely doesn't.
As for next time, perhaps it would be easier to have a number of groups that's a power of two? If you'd had eight groups with four or five in each, rather than seven with five in each, at least it would be less arguable who got through.
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 23, 2007 14:36:01 GMT -5
good point rycchus with the group numbers. just out of interest, when's the next tourney slarty? i know they're probs a lot of stress 2u, but i had a (potentially) good idea for a tourney, it's kinda lots of mini-tourneys- all people of 1900+ ELO have their own tourney; all people of 1750-1899 ELO have their own tourney; all people of 1600-1749 ELO have their own tourney; all people of 1599 and below ELO have their own tourney. i havent really thought this thru, so its probably less than ideal, but what do u think? just thought it might be a bit simpler and more at each player's level (although i admit that the differing ability of players is part of the romance of the big tourney, rather like the FA cup), and obviously it benefits lower-league players such as myself! Laxen
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 23, 2007 14:43:36 GMT -5
The main problem with that, Laxen, is that there are a lot of slow players around your ELO. You might end up with the tourney dragging on a long time. Also, like you say, the differing ability is part of the fun of it.
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 23, 2007 14:46:12 GMT -5
true, but in a single-elimination type tourney (similar to the loser's tourney) it wouldn't drag on too long, and it also balances out- because guys with around my ELO log on less often, less would sign up, whereas more would sign up higher up but they would also play more regularly. i dunno, i still kinda like the idea, but then again i did think it up
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 23, 2007 14:46:51 GMT -5
ps HEXENHAMMER?!? who thought THAT one up?!?
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Sept 23, 2007 15:00:26 GMT -5
Fear me, Extispex, with my superior post count!
|
|
laxen
Ronin Warlock
Posts: 77
|
Post by laxen on Sept 23, 2007 15:01:48 GMT -5
whoah, 166!!! dude, that's like, WHOAH!!! i've got a better post/karma rate tho
|
|