Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 17:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi fellow spacepilots.
So after our fight today where we fielded 41p vs a 36p we found out that the intentional handicap rules seems to have changed. How we've ran with it before is by fielding less than 50p and if we win, we gain those points due to intentionally handicapping ourselves.
Now people are telling us because the other team fielded less points than us, we're not getting any bonuses for intentionally handicapping ourselves.
I have a problem with this due to the implications this has. If this is the case, the metagaming will be taking on a directly hurtful direction of the tournament as it allows teams in for example the second round to completely take another team out of the tournament by only fielding a frigate. That would make a team that didnt get points in the first round near completely unable to go through unless they made a deal with their opponents. Yes.. EvE is about shady deals and metagaming a whole lot, but taking the entire third days matches out of the equation will make for bad television too.
The way it used to work (unless I've misunderstood something) is that you got the points you kill + the points they didn't field + the points below 50 you field (the intentional handicap). This means that you get interesting fights while maintaining the metagaming in trying to field as little points as possible while still being able to win.
I don't know if this thread will change anything. Me and my team feel cheated on the fact that we "had to" do deals in a competitive tournament to stand a chance in the qualifications. Just feels like such a horribly **** way of being taken out of the tournament when we actually go out and field less than 50 points into the fight.
Not meant to be a rant, but if there's any chance of having this fixed or otherwise changed maybe to next year.. Please for the love of all that is holy or otherwise, do. |
Zastrow
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 17:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
if it worked the way you want, both teams would just bring 1 frigate and get at least 48 points, the winner getting even more |
Nidia Masters
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 17:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
I think it is also important to note that this handicap rule is not mentioned in the "Rules" page on the alliance tournament website, but buried at the bottom of the "format" page. Not a very common place to check for victory conditions. |
BillNyeTheEVEguy
Touch of Madness
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 17:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
I understand your point about the potential for another team to field a single frigate and wreck someone's chances of advancing. However, it seems like that situation would very rarely happen, as presumably both teams want to put on a good show (and would not have any monetary incentive to field only one frigate.)
Also, it's hard to sympathize with someone who lost 0-50 in the first round. You can say that the rules made it so that it wasn't possible for you to advance, but...
Nidia Masters wrote:I think it is also important to note that this handicap rule is not mentioned in the "Rules" page on the alliance tournament website, but buried at the bottom of the "format" page. Not a very common place to check for victory conditions. And yet obviously you read the rule because you tried to exploit it. |
Markus Reese
Incertae Sedis Cascade Imminent
216
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 17:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
I would need to double check the rules, but the way I thought I read them and understood them when they came out was that the points in qualifiers you didn't field would go to the other team. That is unless they changed in the past month. If the other team fields less points, you will get the difference.
Victory Conditions 1.During a match, a team scores points for each enemy ship it kills, equal to the tournament points value of that ship. The team that has scored the most points at the conclusion of the match, or that destroys the entire opposing team, is the winner. 2.If a team chooses to field less than 100 points, non-fielded points count towards the opponent's score. GùªThis rule applies to the 50 point limit during Pre-Qualifying, not 100 points.
|
Kil2
Club Bear
287
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
I think at least its safe to say that this format is overly complicated during qualifying. It sucks that you guys may suffer as a result of that, regardless of where blame should be placed.
I have no idea, but I would guess that next year we will see the tournament format re-examined and simplified so that this sort of thing doesn't happen as much.
On the plus side, you guys' match was amazing to watch and today has generally been really entertaining.
|
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Zastrow wrote:if it worked the way you want, both teams would just bring 1 frigate and get at least 48 points, the winner getting even more
While that would be possible indeed, there would have to be a deal made volountarily between the two teams that allowed one of the teams to win the match. The current rules allow for sabotaging someones chances to go through in a non-consensual way and would then force teams to make deals so that this didn't happen.
Also keep in mind that a team that fields a frigate twice in a row and concedes to a loss won't go through since wins count before losses and they can't be sure to meet a team willing to make a deal in the second round either. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
601
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.
The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now. Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
no you're wrong about that Alekseyev and OP; "we found out that the intentional handicap rules seems to have changed."
sorry but it has never changed you simply didn't read the rules well enough
From the rules;
"If a team begins the match with less points value worth of ships than their opponent, and wins the match, they score extra ranking points equal to the difference in the two teams' values."
This is the way it's been in every tournament that has had a handicap rule.
http://community.eveonline.com/en/tournament/format |
Intex Encapor
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
from last years ic tourney page
United Front Alliance failed to appear for their scheduled match against The R0NIN. As a result, The R0NIN received a grand total of 82.5 points; 50 points, plus 16 points for fielding a low scoring fleet, and an additional 25% for winning.
so if rules haven'T changed you'RE wrong tyrrax |
|
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Quote:United Front Alliance failed to appear for their scheduled match against The R0NIN. As a result, The R0NIN received a grand total of 82.5 points; 50 points, plus 16 points for fielding a low scoring fleet, and an additional 25% for winning.
http://at.eve-ic.net/9/index.php?view=match&id=37
With this being my sixth tournament fielding/running a team this has been the way we've always ran against the rules and not noticed it happening in any other way before. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'm pretty sure failing to appear is just considered the same as fielding 50 rather than fielding 0 I vaguely recall some GM judgements and debate about how to handle that kind of situation in the distant past.. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t9/format.asp
Same rules last time, you've just never read that part all these years I guess Ladel ? |
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t9/format.asp
Same rules last time, you've just never read that part all these years I guess Ladel ?
I'll concede then that I've just had luck every tournament then.
I still think its really stupid though. I'm a fiercely competitive guy and when I go into a competitive tournament I'm not willing to do deals to lose or win, only by actually fighting. Sucks that one has to do it if you lose the first game.
Yes. We could simply not have lost the first game but its a throw of the dice and I like having two fights matter, not just one regardless of first outcome. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 18:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
My biggest worry going into this last match was that Pure Madness. would bring a handicap setup, guess I should've been more worried about nanofibers on tengus :[ |
Soryn Kael
Chaos From Order Manifest Destiny.
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 19:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
The rule hasn't changed.
The only exception is if a team underpoints and the other team doesn't show up at all.
I tried to explain this to your FC before our match so that at least one of our teams had a shot :P |
Ophey Won
Stargate SG-1 Fatal Ascension
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 22:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
You know I hate to point out the obvious here. If you would of done better in your first round you would not have to worry about these rules. The Hail Mary is a last resort of a losing team. The rule is a good rule and a fair one. |
Khanh'rhh
1378
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 13:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
I really like the rule, glad to see it coming into play more this year as people wise up to it.
Intentionally bringing less points and still needing to win and kill them all makes it interesting, and the need to gamble how low to go more so.
Quote:I'm a fiercely competitive guy [...] I'm not willing to do deals to lose or win Very honourable and all, but not a great position to take on an EvE alliance tournament. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1989
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 13:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.
The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now.
The language hasn't changed from 9. At all.
:edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5 "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1989
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 13:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Soryn Kael wrote:The rule hasn't changed.
The only exception is if a team underpoints and the other team doesn't show up at all.
I tried to explain this to your FC before our match so that at least one of our teams had a shot :P
I think this got corrected later in the day and I'm hoping today we'll have the script fixed so the proper totals show up in local at the end of the match. "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
|
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 14:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.
Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney. |
Tony Two Bullet
Monocle Madness The Mockers AO
111
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 14:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
I think the handicap system is a pretty dynamic addition.
Those kinds of decisions definitely make the opening qualifiers more interesting in terms of posturing.
CEO-á Monocle Madness ~ Mega-Insane Lotteries for the Mentally Unstable http://www.monoclemadness.com |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
602
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 15:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.
The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now. The language hasn't changed from 9. At all. :edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5 ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language.
Still wonky ;p Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 15:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.
The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now. The language hasn't changed from 9. At all. :edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5 ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language. Still wonky ;p
Since we didnt get to fly AT9 that would explain it for us since we were AT4-8.
Btw, ignore my previous post. Its the last team you won against. |
Tyrrax Thorrk
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 16:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.
The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now. The language hasn't changed from 9. At all. :edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5 ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language. Still wonky ;p
http://community.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t8/format.asp
same in 8, it's never changed as far as I remember
edit; the only possible change would be teams no showing being considered as fielding 50 rather than zero |
Hoshi
Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 16:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ladel Teravada wrote:While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.
Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney. This is how the swiss system is supposed to work. Losing early and winning late means you most likely won against a weaker opponent than someone who did opposite.
In chess they have even taken this to an extreme with progressive counting that give less points for later wins. "Memories are meant to fade. They're designed that way for a reason." |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1991
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 17:25:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tyrrax Thorrk wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Previous tourniments with the intentional handicap rule (8 and 9) had it setup that you'd get the handicap points regardless of what your opponent fielded, as long as you won.
The change in language is both strange and for reasons given above unfortunate, but unless it was an oversight/typo (in which case Sreegs will probably say something) it's probably too late to do anything about it now. The language hasn't changed from 9. At all. :edit: efb by Tyrrax hi5 ya got corrected on this in Skype. AT9 changed from AT8, ATX is using the 9 language. Still wonky ;p http://community.eveonline.com/events/alliances/tournament/t8/format.aspsame in 8, it's never changed as far as I remember edit; the only possible change would be teams no showing being considered as fielding 50 rather than zero
We literally rarely change rules. "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1991
|
Posted - 2012.07.08 17:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ladel Teravada wrote:While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.
Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.
We make a review at the end of every tournament. "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
406
|
Posted - 2012.07.09 15:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ladel Teravada wrote:While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.
Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney.
This is not necessarily true...
Rankings are ordered: 1.) W/L record. 2.) Point Total 3.) The rank of the team you last defeated. 4.) The rank of the team you last lost to.
If you win your first match, and lose your second match, the last team you defeated's rank can be anywhere between 16-64. If you lose your first match, and win your second match, the last team you defeated's ranked somewhere between 48-64.
Many Top 32 teams had tie breakers below 48 (are tie breaker is placed 60).
And given the results, there was only one tie breaker that mattered:
Test --- (Tie breaker 57) <-- Lost the first, won the second, and moved forward.... Revolution --- (Tie Breaker 62) <-- Won the first and lost the second match....
Also, this ranking makes sense, imagine there is a superstrong team A, and a mediocre team B. Team 1: defeated B in the first round, and lost to team A in the second round... Team 2: lost to team A in the first round, but defeated team B in the second round...
Assuming the same points scored against Team A & B each round, then Team 1 and Team 2 are in exactly the same position.... There is no direct advantage to winning first or second... |
Ladel Teravada
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.09 20:11:00 -
[30] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:Ladel Teravada wrote:While I (hopefully) have your attention Sreegs.. Has the team considered the fact that a win in the first match is more worth than a win in the second? The way the tiebreaker system works combined with the swiss system or whatever you call it, is that if you win your first match you meet someone else who won their first match. While this might be seen as disadvantageous, even if you lose with full points your opponent will be among the top 16 = you'll be in a much better position for tiebreakers than people with the same wins/score but from the second match.
Just making a point. Its obviously not possible to change now for this tourney. This is not necessarily true... Rankings are ordered: 1.) W/L record. 2.) Point Total 3.) The rank of the team you last defeated. 4.) The rank of the team you last lost to. If you win your first match, and lose your second match, the last team you defeated's rank can be anywhere between 16-64. If you lose your first match, and win your second match, the last team you defeated's ranked somewhere between 48-64. Many Top 32 teams had tie breakers below 48 (are tie breaker is placed 60). And given the results, there was only one tie breaker that mattered: Test --- (Tie breaker 57) <-- Lost the first, won the second, and moved forward.... Revolution --- (Tie Breaker 62) <-- Won the first and lost the second match.... Also, this ranking makes sense, imagine there is a superstrong team A, and a mediocre team B. Team 1: defeated B in the first round, and lost to team A in the second round... Team 2: lost to team A in the first round, but defeated team B in the second round... Assuming the same points scored against Team A & B each round, then Team 1 and Team 2 are in exactly the same position.... There is no direct advantage to winning first or second...
As I said in a later post I noted this too. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |