|
Post by biologin001 on Aug 21, 2009 14:03:31 GMT -5
I'd like to apologize for the delay with tournament announcement and registration and stuff. Unfortunately, I'm extremely busy till Monday, and then I'll be moderately busy till September 1st. I hope I'll be able to get myself together and do everything before Autumn starts, but even if I won't, we still will have two weeks for registration, which is OK IMO.
|
|
|
Post by biologin001 on Aug 24, 2009 6:05:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Aug 24, 2009 14:14:16 GMT -5
I'd suggest an exception to the "you must register the account with the highest ELO" rule for players who have no accounts with ELO over ~1500. In this case, players should register with the account that has played the most ranked games rather than the side account that has only played a few.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Aug 25, 2009 9:22:35 GMT -5
But really, why does anyone need a second account? (beyond either lazy wanna get up on the ladder fast or want to escape the baggage associated with their name) Multiple accounts is just silly... Plus, how are you going to be able to brag about your game count?
|
|
|
Post by succat on Aug 25, 2009 10:44:51 GMT -5
Mike...
Why?
|
|
|
Post by mikeEB on Aug 25, 2009 11:12:57 GMT -5
The alt-o-rama event, for one. Say there happens to be a warlock in the tournament who has an ELO in the 1400s whose alt had an ELO close to 1500 due to not playing very many games. Do we really want to (hypothetically) disqualify someone from the tournament because they also happen to have an account which isn't allowed to participate for other reasons?
Or, to put it differently, if *my* ELO were 1450, would you want me to compete as AltMike (1500 ELO, 0 games played)?
|
|
|
Post by biologin001 on Aug 27, 2009 6:32:20 GMT -5
Spammed 'em hard.
|
|
|
Post by biologin001 on Sept 3, 2009 1:40:26 GMT -5
16 participants is not as much as it could be. If any of you guys can ask non-participating players to attend, or willing to do some announces on non-warlocks forums, do it please.
|
|
|
Post by ktafin on Sept 6, 2009 3:53:42 GMT -5
Okay, I just had to vent a bit... I apologize beforehand.
So, what's the deal with everyone thinking that ELO is the only measure of a player? I started playing before the ELO system was even implemented... back when ladder was the only thing that mattered. In all that time, I've never seen an ELO higher than 1500, unless it was one day I've long forgotten when, for one shining moment, I was better than brand new... I've played against some of the best players in this game, including some that haven't been seen in a long time and even our progenitor RavenBlack himself. I'd call that at least somewhat impressive, personally. I've even been top 20 in the ladder with >100 people actively playing. And as to the whole <1700 = rookie, I'm not sure if I'm offended or hopeful for a title ;D
Short version, I wish people (especially old timers / top rankers) wouldn't act like a low ELO means a person is a noob or just a crappy player. There's more to it than that.
</end rant>
|
|
|
Post by biologin001 on Sept 6, 2009 5:36:51 GMT -5
ktafin I'm not sure that I'm in a good position to argue (too easy to call me biassed for currently being top ELO player), but I guess I'll still try. While ELO system is definitely not perfect, it is still the best measure of player's _skill_ then anything else we have. Basically it is the sum of game_result*opponents_toughness for all your games, which is a good way to measure one as a competitive player. Speaking about ladder score, the very reason ELO was created is because ladder wasn't good at measuring player's skill; instead, it was measuring player's latest streak. The thing about losing all points in one game is ridiculous in terms of skill - if two top wizards make it to double death on the top of the ladder (as Taliesin and Tchichi did twice), and both drop to zero, does that mean that they are suddenly less skilled that a player with ladder score 1? I hope you're not serious about that. Speaking about games amount and experience and opponents met, it is all fine and cool and earns you respect, but it is not about skill. Say, there is Alaric who have played more then 3k games, and there is a Taliesin, ExDeath and Slartucker, each having less then 1k games under the belt. Does quantity of games played really measures your skill? Possibly, in some way, but IMHO it is obvious that not directly. == There already was a discussion on this matter here in this forum in thread where succat argued with ExDeath and Slarty. I took time to unearth it for you, enjoy: slarty.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=warlocks&thread=208 =)
|
|
|
Post by ellipsis on Sept 8, 2009 0:20:43 GMT -5
I don't think anyone's trying to suggest that players who have an elo below 1700 (or any other number) are not worthwhile players or should be treated as second-class. It's simply that we need a way of organizing players, and elo is a better measure than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by biologin001 on Sept 8, 2009 8:37:15 GMT -5
Reminder: registration closes in 9 hours!
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 9, 2009 0:10:37 GMT -5
What are you talking about Ellipsis, that's the whole point of the Isle!
|
|
|
Post by BioLogIn on Sept 9, 2009 7:55:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vermont on Sept 9, 2009 9:09:32 GMT -5
Hey, since I'm not participating this time, I'm happy to help out with any judging as needed, assuming I'm deemed capable enough to assess games. Good luck to everyone involved!
|
|