Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 15:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
I just wonder about something. IC has created a ranking list here, but what determines the positions of this list? There are 23 teams that have won a complete shutout victory in the past weekend. All of them should be tied, unless speed is a determining factor. But then the list is inaccurate as the Red vs. Blue game was one of the faster ones on Saturday, achieving a shutout in around 3-4 minutes.
From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.
And if there is a tea-breaking situation then, just apply the speed into the mix. The faster you did it, the higher your rank. Plain and simple. Oh, and in my opinion, the teams for next week should not be teamed up like rank 1 vs rank 2, but rank 1 vs 32.
I loved watching the ATX event of last weekend and although the commentators tend to be "a little" biased at times, it's still a job well done in general. |
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 15:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
The Rules wrote:Pre-Qualifying Rankings
If at any point, teams are level in Win/Loss and also level in points scored, the following will be used in order to determine ranking position.
If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher. The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better. The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better. As odd as it may sound, the situation you mention comparing RvB and Hun is accurate. There are still a host of teams that tie given the above rules - I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out. They're a little tired so it might take some time. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 15:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for the quote Veritas, but erhm..
CCP Veritas wrote: I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out.
Can you tell the "rules people" that they need to drastically change the set-up for this? It just doesn't make sense to participate then. If you are a good team and you see you are winning already having defeated a few ships of the opponent, then the only just strategy at this point should be:
"Ok, let's mop up the rest of them and be done with it".
and not this.
"uhm, guys, we are doing great, but we are winning too fast, we need to sacrfice a few tacklers and perhaps one dps ship to give the opponent more points, which will give us a better rank when we do defeat them at the end of the game".
That is nuts. When it's a war, it's a war. You don't care about points you need to sacrifice in order to get a better rank. If my team can defeat you now and make sure that I don't lose a ship, then that really tells something about how my team has performed. Not this mumbo-jumbo about losing a few ships in order to achieve the highest rank. |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
181
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 15:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Thanks for the quote Veritas, but erhm.. CCP Veritas wrote: I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out. Can you tell the "rules people" that they need to drastically change the set-up for this? It just doesn't make sense to participate then. If you are a good team and you see you are winning already having defeated a few ships of the opponent, then the only just strategy at this point should be: "Ok, let's mop up the rest of them and be done with it". and not this. "uhm, guys, we are doing great, but we are winning too fast, we need to sacrfice a few tacklers and perhaps one dps ship to give the opponent more points, which will give us a better rank when we do defeat them at the end of the game". That is nuts. When it's a war, it's a war. You don't care about points you need to sacrifice in order to get a better rank. If my team can defeat you now and make sure that I don't lose a ship, then that really tells something about how my team has performed. Not this mumbo-jumbo about losing a few ships in order to achieve the highest rank.
however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play. Many many MANY ppl have complaned about a lack of excitement being a large concern. I was under the impression that this (awarding tie breaks on action on the field) would motivate teams that were a little on the fence with points to rethink their setups outside full tank and full ecm.
While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it. To all everyone concerned over the fairness involving the H/O disqualification https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=113351&find=unread |
Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
354
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 15:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Singulis Pacifica wrote:Thanks for the quote Veritas, but erhm.. CCP Veritas wrote: I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out. Can you tell the "rules people" that they need to drastically change the set-up for this? It just doesn't make sense to participate then. If you are a good team and you see you are winning already having defeated a few ships of the opponent, then the only just strategy at this point should be: "Ok, let's mop up the rest of them and be done with it". and not this. "uhm, guys, we are doing great, but we are winning too fast, we need to sacrfice a few tacklers and perhaps one dps ship to give the opponent more points, which will give us a better rank when we do defeat them at the end of the game". That is nuts. When it's a war, it's a war. You don't care about points you need to sacrifice in order to get a better rank. If my team can defeat you now and make sure that I don't lose a ship, then that really tells something about how my team has performed. Not this mumbo-jumbo about losing a few ships in order to achieve the highest rank. however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play. Many many MANY ppl have complaned about a lack of excitement being a large concern. I was under the impression that this (awarding tie breaks on action on the field) would motivate teams that were a little on the fence with points to rethink their setups outside full tank and full ecm. While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it.
IMO This tournament is off to a great start. Thanks CCP for being so awesome. Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat Host of Frigfest http://judelloyd.blog.com/ http://kb.heretic-army.biz/
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 16:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote: however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play.
That may or may not be the case, the problem with the current rule-set is that it is unclear, not logical, and opens up a slippery slope of debatable "tactics" by teams to pre-arrange their game in a way they can benefit the most out of it.
Quote:While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it.
The problem is that although tie-breaking may or may not be a major concern in the group stage or playoff-games, the current rule-set does determine the next team for the second round of qualifying games. If the current system is used, I'd expect teams to number-crunch to determine the best course of action. And since when is a deathmatch tournament about who is the best at math? It should be about who can blow up the opponent the fastest and loses no ships on his/her own team.
Yarrrr, mateys...
|
Nevigrofnu Mrots
Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 16:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:Karl Planck wrote: however, on the flip side this rule makes it so that teams like ECM teams, which are usually all or nothing teams less incentive to play.
That may or may not be the case, the problem with the current rule-set is that it is unclear, not logical, and opens up a slippery slope of debatable "tactics" by teams to pre-arrange their game in a way they can benefit the most out of it. Quote:While I get your point, in general this will not come into play very often, especially after the pre-quals. I like where they tried to push the action in this years AT, this rule being part of it. The problem is that although tie-breaking may or may not be a major concern in the group stage or playoff-games, the current rule-set does determine the next team for the second round of qualifying games. If the current system is used, I'd expect teams to number-crunch to determine the best course of action. And since when is a deathmatch tournament about who is the best at math? It should be about who can blow up the opponent the fastest way and loses no ships on his/her own team. Yarrrr, mateys...
since rules are not present / written before all of this starts, creating news ones to fit this problem may be problematic and will raise discussions. Keep it simple: If 2 or more teams have the same points, rank them using a lottery draw and carry on. Next year think about this a little better and have rules written down before the first match starts. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
405
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 16:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:The Rules wrote:Pre-Qualifying Rankings
If at any point, teams are level in Win/Loss and also level in points scored, the following will be used in order to determine ranking position.
If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher. The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better. The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better. As odd as it may sound, the situation you mention comparing RvB and Hun is accurate. There are still a host of teams that tie given the above rules - I'm working with the rules people to sort that all out. They're a little tired so it might take some time.
By my calculations, Hun ****** it all up by being the odd man out...
First Place: Hun Reloaded Second Place: Tie between: Tribal Conclave and The Space Police Third Place: Tie between: Heretic Nation and Fatal Ascension Fourth Place: Tie between: Raiden and Agony Empire Fifth Place: Tie between Exodus and Alpha Volley Union Sixth Place: Tie between Against All Authorities and Pandemic Legion. Seventh Place: Tie between twelve teams... -- Northern Coalition -- The G0dfathers -- Ev0ke -- Goonswarm Federation -- The Gorgon Empire -- Dead Terrorists -- DarkSide. -- Verge of Collapse -- Red vs Blue -- THE R0NIN -- Team Liquid -- Suddenly Spaceships.
Eighth Place: Out of Sight... Ninth Place: Mildly Intoxicated Tenth Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. 11th: Gypsy Band 12th Elysian Empire 13th: Fearless 14th: Nulli Secunda 15th: Rotte Kapelle 16th: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 17th: Black Legion 18th: Perihelion Alliance 19th: Sleeper Social Club 20th: Babylon 5. 21rst: Tie -- Shadow Cartel and The Kadeshi, 22nd: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy 23rd: Tie -- Kill it with fire and Romanian-Legion 24th: Choke Point 25th: Tie -- Lone Star Partners and Exiled Ones 26th: Tie -- Dark Taboo and Bruderschaft der Pilger 27th: Tie -- Why so Serious and Dystopia Alliance 28th: Pure Madness 29th: Tie between 12 teams: -- Capital Punishment -- No Holes Barred -- The Veyr Collective -- Razor Alliance -- Brick Squad -- The Fourth District -- Wormholes Holders -- Test Alliance Please Ignore -- Dirt Nap Squad -- Solar Fleet -- Manifest Destiny -- Get Off My Lawn 30th: C.V.A. 31rst: Noir. Merc Group
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
538
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
You're missing RED.OverLord, just above Choke Point I believe. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Corine Noas
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote: From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.
You might wanna try to look from the other side: say, Team A defeats team B 50:0 Team C defeats team D 50:20 This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B. This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A.
It's all theoretically of course, bcuz practically it's all much complicated. But a clear and fair theoretical approach is enough and I believe CCP did use it. Hope made the point clear for you. |
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
Corine Noas wrote: You might wanna try to look from the other side: say, Team A defeats team B 50:0 Team C defeats team D 50:20 This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B.
Agreed
Corine Noas wrote: This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A.
Not necessarily. Team A defeated an opponent in a total shutout, C won the victory, but at a loss of some ships. This either means that, indeed C faced a tougher opponent, or A is better skilled than C being able to win in a shutout.
In your example, the teams should be ranked like this:
1st: Team A 2nd: Team C 3rd: Team D 4th: Team B
The rankings are not determined based on the individual skill of A or C. They are based on purely one fact alone: the outcome of the game. Regardless of whether D is a tougher opponent than B, it matters that A won without a single loss of their ships, while C did lose some ships in the process of achieving victory.
So a strategy of putting in some ships that act as cannon-fodder to be defeated by the opponent is better than a team that is dedicated to win without losing any ship on their side? That makes no sense. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
405
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 17:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Corine Noas wrote:Singulis Pacifica wrote: From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.
You might wanna try to look from the other side: say, Team A defeats team B 50:0 Team C defeats team D 50:20 This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B. This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A. It's all theoretically of course, bcuz practically it's all much complicated. But a clear and fair theoretical approach is enough and I believe CCP did use it. Hope made the point clear for you.
I think the current ranking system is fine.... And i Agree with Corine... The only potential problem I see, is if the cut-off between winners and losers occurs in some tie-zone place....
It's a tough decision: In the current form, if a team wins but lost a bunch of ships, they are rewarded for it. This encourages action, and at this point in time, system gaming is impractical (for the winners). Win/Loss record orders rankings before point totals, and given the even number of teams, you're fighting an opponenet that has the same Win/Loss record as you.
Example: If a current winner takes another win, it doesn't matter what ranking their current opponent has, they will move forward becuase they have two wins. If a current loser takes on another current loser, it doesnt matter how many points they give their opponent, as they will be in the 2xL bracket, and won't have a rank above 16!!
There is one way to game this system.... If you are a current winner, you could make a pact with your next opponent to guarantee that no matter who wins, one side will sacrifice 20+ pts before "winning" the match. This will assure both of you progress... Now, it's up to the winner to adhere to your terms, and CCP already said that if they "suspect" metagaming on this level they will ban both teams from the tourney.... Given the fact teams in the winner brackette are already well positioned to move ahead anyways, I don't think this is something most will risk!!!
If you're a loser, you need to win by points, as the rank of you're opponent will be 16 or less, meaning you won't win any tie-breakers with them.... |
Manofwarr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:04:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lots of :::WORDS::: for just trying to say rank based on POINT DIFFERENTIAL..... |
Zumra
INX Industries
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:12:00 -
[14] - Quote
Let me get this straight, so you are saying a good way for teams to be ranked high is to kill everything except 1 ship they are confident they can get easier, move all other ships out of the combat area to blow up, then kill the last ship? It really makes no sense for teams to be penalized for winning 50:0, the other team not getting anything does not mean they were worse then a losing team that got some points, it could mean this winning team was just that much better. |
Ophey Won
Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
By my calculations, Hun ****** it all up by being the odd man out...
1st Place: Hun Reloaded 3rd Place: Tie between: Tribal Conclave and The Space Police 5th Place: Tie between: Heretic Nation and Fatal Ascension 7th Place: Tie between: Raiden and Agony Empire 9th Place: Tie between Exodus and Alpha Volley Union 11th Place: Tie between Against All Authorities and Pandemic Legion. 23rdh Place: Tie between twelve teams... -- Northern Coalition -- The G0dfathers -- Ev0ke -- Goonswarm Federation -- The Gorgon Empire -- Dead Terrorists -- DarkSide. -- Verge of Collapse -- Red vs Blue -- THE R0NIN -- Team Liquid -- Suddenly Spaceships.
24th Place: Out of Sight... 25th Place: Mildly Intoxicated 26th Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. 27th: Gypsy Band 28th Elysian Empire 29th: Fearless 30th: Nulli Secunda 31st: Rotte Kapelle 32nd: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 33rd: Black Legion 34th: Perihelion Alliance 35th: Sleeper Social Club 36th: Babylon 5. 38th: Tie -- Shadow Cartel and The Kadeshi, 40th: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy 42nd: Tie -- Kill it with fire and Romanian-Legion 43rd: Red Overlord 44th: Choke Point 46th: Tie -- Lone Star Partners and Exiled Ones 48th: Tie -- Dark Taboo and Bruderschaft der Pilger 50th: Tie -- Why so Serious and Dystopia Alliance 51st: Pure Madness 62nd: Tie between -- Capital Punishment -- No hOles Barred -- The Veyr Collective -- Razor Alliance -- Brick Squad -- The Fourth District -- Wormholes Holders -- Test Alliance Please Ignore -- Dirt Nap Squad -- Solar Fleet -- Manifest Destiny -- Get Off My Lawn 63rd: C.V.A. 64th: Noir. Merc Group
*edit* Match Length could be used to fairly sort out the Currently tied teams... otherwise it's moreless arbitrary.... Also, we have no hard feelings towards hun, but if they had placed a little worse, then the tied teams would be facing each other... Added in Red Overloard
Fixed the places for you. 64 teams competed.
|
Jude Lloyd
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
354
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 18:57:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ophey Won wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
By my calculations, Hun ****** it all up by being the odd man out...
1st Place: Hun Reloaded 3rd Place: Tie between: Tribal Conclave and The Space Police 5th Place: Tie between: Heretic Nation and Fatal Ascension 7th Place: Tie between: Raiden and Agony Empire 9th Place: Tie between Exodus and Alpha Volley Union 11th Place: Tie between Against All Authorities and Pandemic Legion. 23rdh Place: Tie between twelve teams... -- Northern Coalition -- The G0dfathers -- Ev0ke -- Goonswarm Federation -- The Gorgon Empire -- Dead Terrorists -- DarkSide. -- Verge of Collapse -- Red vs Blue -- THE R0NIN -- Team Liquid -- Suddenly Spaceships.
24th Place: Out of Sight... 25th Place: Mildly Intoxicated 26th Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. 27th: Gypsy Band 28th Elysian Empire 29th: Fearless 30th: Nulli Secunda 31st: Rotte Kapelle 32nd: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 33rd: Black Legion 34th: Perihelion Alliance 35th: Sleeper Social Club 36th: Babylon 5. 38th: Tie -- Shadow Cartel and The Kadeshi, 39th: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy 41std: Tie -- Kill it with fire and Romanian-Legion 42nd: Red Overlord 43rd: Choke Point 45th: Tie -- Lone Star Partners and Exiled Ones 47th: Tie -- Dark Taboo and Bruderschaft der Pilger 49th: Tie -- Why so Serious and Dystopia Alliance 50th: Pure Madness 62nd: Tie between -- Capital Punishment -- No hOles Barred -- The Veyr Collective -- Razor Alliance -- Brick Squad -- The Fourth District -- Wormholes Holders -- Test Alliance Please Ignore -- Dirt Nap Squad -- Solar Fleet -- Manifest Destiny -- Get Off My Lawn 63rd: C.V.A. 64th: Noir. Merc Group
*edit* Match Length could be used to fairly sort out the Currently tied teams... otherwise it's moreless arbitrary.... Also, we have no hard feelings towards hun, but if they had placed a little worse, then the tied teams would be facing each other... Added in Red Overloard
Fixed the places for you. 64 teams competed.
Lol Ophey, we're tied.
Heretic Army Warlord and Diplomat Host of Frigfest http://judelloyd.blog.com/ http://kb.heretic-army.biz/
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
405
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Corine Noas wrote:Singulis Pacifica wrote: From what I can see based on the list of the IC people, it does seem that the total points of the losing team determines the position of your own team. Hun Reloaded won by a shutout, but at the cost of 16 points won by the opponent, where as Red vs. Blue also won a shutout victory, but theirs was without any loss on their own team. Yet the former is ranked 1st and the latter 20th. So the more points the losing team gets, the higher your own rank? What kind of reasoning is that? These are deathmatch games. It's about defeating your opponent and kick them while they are down. So Red vs. Blue and all the other teams that have won complete shutout victories without losing any ship on their side should be ranked the highest.
You might wanna try to look from the other side: say, Team A defeats team B 50:0 Team C defeats team D 50:20 This means team D played their matchup better than team B (against equal 50p gained teams) -> team D is overall better than team B. This also means team C defeated stronger opponent than team A -> team C is overall better than team A. It's all theoretically of course, bcuz practically it's all much complicated. But a clear and fair theoretical approach is enough and I believe CCP did use it. Hope made the point clear for you. I think the current ranking system is fine.... And i Agree with Corine... The only potential problem I see, is if the cut-off between winners and losers occurs in some tie-zone place.... It's a tough decision: In the current form, if a team wins but lost a bunch of ships, they are rewarded for it. This encourages action, and at this point in time, system gaming is impractical (for the winners). Win/Loss record orders rankings before point totals, and given the even number of teams, you're fighting an opponenet that has the same Win/Loss record as you. Example: If a current winner takes another win, it doesn't matter what ranking their current opponent has, they will move forward becuase they have two wins. If a current loser takes on another current loser, it doesnt matter how many points they give their opponent, as they will be in the 2xL bracket, and won't have a rank above 16!! There is one way to game this system.... If you are a current winner, you could make a pact with your next opponent to guarantee that no matter who wins, one side will sacrifice 20+ pts before "winning" the match. This will assure both of you progress... Now, it's up to the winner to adhere to your terms, and CCP already said that if they "suspect" metagaming on this level they will ban both teams from the tourney.... Given the fact teams in the winner brackette are already well positioned to move ahead anyways, I don't think this is something most will risk!!! If you're a loser, you need to win by points, as the rank of you're opponent will be 16 or less, meaning you won't win any tie-breakers with them....
On second thought, the last team defeated for the winners bracket could be any rank below 48... and the last team defeated for the losers bracket will be rank 16 or lower.... The losers in the winners have no way to mess with their loser's ranking... but the winners of the losers do..... interesting...
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
538
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Official rankings are up: http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/rankings
Schedule will come later. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:50:00 -
[19] - Quote
Thanks, but a disappointment. May I ask what the determining factor was to rank the tie-breakers? The speed in which they completed the game against the opponent?
So suppose you would use a simple point-differential system (thanks Manofwarr) instead of your current debatable version.
Then you would get for the winning teams:
1st Place: Tie between twelve teams (record is 62.5 - 0) -- Northern Coalition -- The G0dfathers -- Ev0ke -- Goonswarm Federation -- The Gorgon Empire -- Dead Terrorists -- DarkSide. -- Verge of Collapse -- Red vs Blue -- THE R0NIN -- Team Liquid -- Suddenly Spaceships.
13th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 2.0) -- Against All Authorities -- Pandemic Legion.
15th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 4.0) -- Exodus -- Alpha Volley Union
17th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 6.0) -- Raiden -- Agony Empire
19th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 10.0) -- Heretic Nation -- Fatal Ascension
21st Place: Tie between two teams (record is 62.5 - 14.0) -- Tribal Conclave -- The Space Police
23rd Place: Hun Reloaded (record is 62.5 - 16.0) 24th Place: Out of Sight... (record is 60.0 - 2.0) 25th Place: Gypsy Band (record is 57.5 - 0) 26th Place: R.E.V.O.L.U.T.I.O.N. (record is 57.5 - 10.0) 27th Place: Mildly Intoxicated (record is 57.5 - 20.0) 28th Place: Elysian Empire (record is 52.5 - 0) 29th Place: Fearless (record is 46.25 - 16.0) 30th Place: Nulli Secunda (record is 41.25 - 16.0) 31st Place: Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad (record is 37.5 - 8.0) 32nd Place: Rotte Kapelle (record is 37.5 - 12.0)
And for the losing teams:
33rd Place: Black Legion (record is 20.0 - 57.5) 34th Place: Babylon 5. (record is 16.0 - 41.25) 35th Place: Sleeper Social Club (record is 16.0 - 46.25) 36th Place: Perihelion Alliance (record is 16.0 - 62.5)
37th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 14.0 - 62.5) -- Shadow Cartel -- The Kadeshi,
39th Place: Percussive Pizza Time Diplomacy (record is 12.0 - 37.5) 40th Place: Red Overlord (record is 10.0 - 57.5)
41st Place: Tie between two teams (record is 10.0 - 62.5) -- Kill it with fire -- Romanian-Legion
43rd Place: Choke Point (record is 8.0 - 37.5)
44th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 6.0 - 62.5) -- Lone Star Partners -- Exiled Ones
46th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 4.0 - 62.5) -- Dark Taboo -- Bruderschaft der Pilger
48th Place: Pure Madness (record is 2.0 - 60.0)
49th Place: Tie between two teams (record is 2.0 - 62.5) -- Why so Serious -- Dystopia Alliance
51st Place: Noir. Mercenary Group (record is 0 - 52.5) 52nd Place: Curatores Veritatis Alliance / CVA (record is 0 - 57.5)
53rd Place: Tie between twelve teams (record is 0 - 62.5) -- Capital Punishment -- No Holes Barred -- The Veyr Collective -- Razor Alliance -- Brick Squad -- The Fourth District -- Wormholes Holders -- Test Alliance Please Ignore -- Dirt Nap Squad -- Solar Fleet -- Manifest Destiny -- Get Off My Lawn
Please note: For tie-breakers, one could use the time in which the game was finished, awarding the faster team a higher rank than the slower team. If this is no longer measurable (don't see why not, there should be videos of each game), then the luck of the draw would suffice, I suppose.
I would also suggest putting rank 1 vs rank 32, rank 2 vs rank 31 etc. This is in favor of the rank 1 vs rank 2 for a simple reason. If the latter is used, it does not reward a team that has performed very well in the first game. If you would put teams which have won by a complete shutout against each other, then one of them has a chance of facing elimination from the contest (there can only be one winner after all). If the top 12 in this case would not face each other, but teams ranked 21 and down to 32, you are more likely to see most of them (the top 12) advance to the group stage. In a contest where there can only be one winner, it should implement a "to the winner go the spoils" set-up. If you did very well in your first game, then the chance is high that you will advance. It's that simple.
|
Gods Coldblood
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
You have made my day by giving us Darkside My lastest video:-áBoom |
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Maliatida
Quafe LP
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway.
Why bother having a tournament at all then? Just randomly generate a winner.
ATX, Alliance Raffle Tournament.
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
I see.
CCP Veritas wrote:We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway
That, I can understand. It would be strange indeed to suddenly change the rule-set. Technically, it could still be applied before the second qualifying round, but I too would favor the current system, how debatable and non-logical it may be.
But please Veritas. What I drew up here isn't rocket-science. Almost all tournaments are drawn up this way. Look at the recent playoffs in the United States and Canada for their Ice Hockey and Basketball leagues. Or more recent: the Euro Cup Soccer. It all comes down to how well you performed in the game and how many goals you scored more than other teams.
So I really hope that for next year, you'd create a set-up like the one I mentioned to really have a clear and logical system in which everyone knows how good or bad the situation is for the participants.
Don't take this feedback as a message that I don't like the tournament though. I love watching the games between these teams. I doubt I'll ever participate given the fact that I'm a high-sec courier and my ship can't even equip a weapon. But it's fun to see others going against each other. May the best team win!
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Maliatida wrote:CCP Veritas wrote:A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway. Why bother having a tournament at all then? Just randomly generate a winner. ATX, Alliance Raffle Tournament. The initial schedule was determined by random as well, are you upset about that? CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Ishihiro tanaka
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Something to keep in mind for the next tournament.
Totally redundant, here are the teams with 62.5 points according to time, give or take a second..
1. Suddenly Spaceships 2m28s 2. Red vs Blue 2m48s 3. The Gorgan Empire 4m50s 4. Northern Coalition. 4m53s 5. Darkside 5m29s 6. Ev0ke 5m32s 7. Team Liquid 5m54s 8. G0dfathers 5m56s 9. Goonswarm Federation 6m10s 10. Verge of Collapse 6m14s 11. Dead terrorists 9m42s 12. R0nin 9m52s
After that there's: Pandemic Legion 4m28s Against All Authorities 5m34s
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
I agree with many of your criticisms and some of your solutions, Singulis. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Singulis Pacifica
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
28
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
Maliatida wrote:
Why bother having a tournament at all then? Just randomly generate a winner.
ATX, Alliance Raffle Tournament.
Not to be the devil's advocate, but there are cases just after this first weekend in which several teams are tied. I would have preferred the time as a determining factor, but again, this was the set of rules created before this year's tournament and the luck of the draw is, although not perfect, acceptable and fair as a used method to finalize the ranks.
|
Gnaw LF
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
106
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 20:59:00 -
[28] - Quote
Maliatida wrote:CCP Veritas wrote:A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway. Why bother having a tournament at all then? Just randomly generate a winner. ATX, Alliance Raffle Tournament.
WINNAR |
Maliatida
Quafe LP
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:Maliatida wrote:CCP Veritas wrote:A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway. Why bother having a tournament at all then? Just randomly generate a winner. ATX, Alliance Raffle Tournament. The initial schedule was determined by random as well, are you upset about that?
There is a fairly clear difference between being incapable to develop a clear seeding system that fits within the timetable of a tournament (in most tournaments there is an understood element of chance, it is the nature of the beast with no initial group stages) and quite literally rolling the dice between ties in a point system to see who comes out on top. |
Ophey Won
Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:15:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jude Lloyd wrote:Lol Ophey, we're tied.
Way to go "random number generator" to put us ahead of you. Good luck with Raiden. Hope to see you guys finales weekend. |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
405
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
Maliatida wrote:CCP Veritas wrote:Maliatida wrote:CCP Veritas wrote:A simple random number broke ties that we did not have a rule to call.
We're most certainly not going to revamp the entire ranking rules once the tournament is underway. Why bother having a tournament at all then? Just randomly generate a winner. ATX, Alliance Raffle Tournament. The initial schedule was determined by random as well, are you upset about that? There is a fairly clear difference between being incapable to develop a clear seeding system that fits within the timetable of a tournament (in most tournaments there is an understood element of chance, it is the nature of the beast with no initial group stages) and quite literally rolling the dice between ties in a point system to see who comes out on top.
At the current point in the tournament, using a roll-of-the-die method to determine if Ronin fights Darkside or any of the other 11 teams they are tied wtih makes little difference....
However, when it comes time to Move up or not to the group stages, using a rolling the die method that kicks a team out of the tourney when they are tied with another team moving forward would be fairly unacceptable IMO. I request a tie-breaker qualifier match between tied opponents if this specific case happens!!!!!
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:32:00 -
[32] - Quote
The chance of having two teams with an identical history with all of their opponents having identical histories gets astonishingly unlikely once we've had a few rounds of fights. It's just that with one round it's very, very likely. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
177
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:44:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:The chance of having two teams with an identical history with all of their opponents having identical histories gets astonishingly unlikely once we've had a few rounds of fights. It's just that with one round it's very, very likely.
Its sort of strange that a team's history factors in at all. Just because a team was strong last year, doesnt mean it is strong this year. Additionally, in a game like eve, its entirely possible that despite having the same alliance name, a team has entirely different people running the team from one year to the next.
|
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:46:00 -
[34] - Quote
It's history within the same tourney sir. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
Gnaw LF
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
106
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:58:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:It's history within the same tourney sir.
So when you say history it does not mean win/lose, you also account for points scored conceded? Because if its just win lose I want to hear your selection process for teams that win one and lose one. |
|
CCP Veritas
C C P C C P Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 22:01:00 -
[36] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/format
Pre-Qualifying Rankings
If at any point, teams are level in Win/Loss and also level in points scored, the following will be used in order to determine ranking position.
If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher. The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better. The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better. CCP Veritas - Senior Programmer - EVE Software |
|
roigon
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 22:03:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:The chance of having two teams with an identical history with all of their opponents having identical histories gets astonishingly unlikely once we've had a few rounds of fights. It's just that with one round it's very, very likely.
But good sir, you do know that a million to one chance happens 9 times out of 10. |
Gnaw LF
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
106
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 22:13:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Veritas wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/format
Pre-Qualifying Rankings
If at any point, teams are level in Win/Loss and also level in points scored, the following will be used in order to determine ranking position.
If the teams disputing rank have fought each other at any point, the winner is higher. The current ranking (W/L, then points) of the last team that you defeated. Higher is better. The current ranking of the last team that defeated you. Again, higher is better.
Oi vey. As you just admitted you used a random generator to determine tie breakers. So at the end of the day, some of the teams are already getting a short stick as the team that defeated them or is defeated by them is ranked lower then they would have if you based it on points conceded / match time. In addition you are also giving benefit to the practice of "throwing ships" where the winning team might sacrifice a ship or two to give points to their opponent so that they get a higher ranking in case they need to have a tie break.
Dammit, I should have read these ******** rules long time ago, could have been bitching about them for a while.
Whatever. |
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 23:30:00 -
[39] - Quote
Just seed everyone into 2 brackets before the tournament starts. End of story. Increases wagering and fun for those who like to smack for the weeks leading up to the finals. This re-seeding after every round is bogus. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3807
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 23:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
Singulis Pacifica wrote:[
do his method so we can fight test
thanks! |
|
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars RED.OverLord
38
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 01:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ranking should be Points you scored, and then the points scored against you.
So if you scored 50 points, but lost 10, your above someone who scored 50 points and lost 11.
The second fights should just simply be, Loser of game 1 day 1 vs loser of game 1 day 1, winner of game 1 day 1 vs winner of game 1 day 2, etc No rankings needed, its random draw, and solves rankings for the end of the qualifying rounds.
I doubt there would be many draws after that, if there was, then you could easily do a mid week playoff, or speed in which they won, or highest isk destroyed. |
Ophey Won
Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 01:19:00 -
[42] - Quote
5n4keyes wrote:Ranking should be Points you scored, and then the points scored against you.
So if you scored 50 points, but lost 10, your above someone who scored 50 points and lost 11.
The second fights should just simply be, Loser of game 1 day 1 vs loser of game 1 day 1, winner of game 1 day 1 vs winner of game 1 day 2, etc No rankings needed, its random draw, and solves rankings for the end of the qualifying rounds.
I doubt there would be many draws after that, if there was, then you could easily do a mid week playoff, or speed in which they won, or highest isk destroyed.
its about the strength of the opponent. An opponent that scored 11 points is rated higher then one that scored 10. So if two teams tied with 50 points then the tie barker would be how strong your opponent was.
|
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars RED.OverLord
37
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 01:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
Realisticly if you want Qualifying rounds you want to have 3 fights, as the point divide would be quite large, having 2 fights really doesnt divide the points, causing what we have at the moment, with many with the same score =P |
Ophey Won
Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 01:54:00 -
[44] - Quote
5n4keyes wrote:Realisticly if you want Qualifying rounds you want to have 3 fights, as the point divide would be quite large, having 2 fights really doesnt divide the points, causing what we have at the moment, with many with the same score =P
How many matches do you want... is this the NHL where we play until June. Wait and see how teams separate after 2 matches. |
5n4keyes
Sacred Templars RED.OverLord
37
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 01:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
@Ophey, its not currently what we have got, currently its just the points you got, not the points you lost, example Huns are currently on top, but they lost ships, there was a couple of matches that had 0 losses, so these should in theory be ranked higher. |
Ophey Won
Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 02:03:00 -
[46] - Quote
Well I can't keep explaining it to you. You don't get how the system works. |
Kumq uat
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 04:55:00 -
[47] - Quote
I know it is tough for you to do snake but stop crying. |
Firebolt145
Gunpoint Diplomacy
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 08:40:00 -
[48] - Quote
Really, I'm just sad that either Verge of Collapse or Darkside might not make it through, and this is just the prelims.
That's like having Spain and Italy play in a bo1 knockout even before the group stages of the Euros.
:( |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |