Cooler | 2014-12-02 18:30:20 |
XXIII global tournament starts on December-7, 13:00 UTC Good luck and have fun! :-) Tendou | 2014-12-02 20:03:45 |
hey cooler, the subject is wrong! it says "Dec-3" instead of Dec-7
Wavelength | 2014-12-03 05:45:40 |
hey cooler, the subject is wrong! it says "Dec-3" instead of Dec-7 Thanks for the catch. Fixed.
Jeronimo | 2014-12-03 06:37:18 |
I'll meet you there Giuseppe.
Modified by Jeronimo on 2014-12-03 06:39:35 Cooler | 2014-12-03 09:02:04 |
I am going to stream the tournament in english from my perspective and then watch others, be sure to tune in everyone : http://www.twitch.tv/tendou91/profile. Great!!! :)
P.S. Thanks to Filip and Wave for catching my mistake :) GrimJ0ker | 2014-12-03 11:30:03 |
I can not be there Sunday. Maybe we'll meet in the game before 2015 Modified by GrimJ0ker on 2014-12-03 12:40:15 Burillo | 2014-12-03 20:12:44 |
Hi, can someone clarify me a question about the tournament: during the swiss round each player should play two matches against the same opponent,
but with few opponents have to play or put another way few games each player plays in total in this round?
I also want to ask if when you lose the duel take away experience Thank you.
I also want to ask if when you lose the duel take away experience
no, all duels in the tournament are considered training games RedRook | 2014-12-05 00:41:17 |
hey cooler, the subject is wrong! it says "Dec-3" instead of Dec-7 Both dates were wrong to me, I thought I was going crazy... Then I looked again & discovered that my calendar still read "November" Unfortunately, I cannot make this one, regardless of the date. But good luck to all! - looking forward to watching the Stream! Hi, can someone clarify me a question about the tournament: during the swiss round each player should play two matches against the same opponent,
but with few opponents have to play or put another way few games each player plays in total in this round?
I also want to ask if when you lose the duel take away experience Thank you.
There are five Swiss Rounds in which two players play two games against one another - you play two matches against the same player. You will receive a score based on the outcomes of those games. Your score determines your ranking in the Tournament lineup. All save the first opponent pairing (randomly chosen first pairing), you will be paired against a player with a similar score to your own ranking. The way the system is set up, you shouldn't ever be paired against the same player more than once - unless it so happens that you meet up in the Final stages again. If you make it into the top 8 at the end of the five Swiss Rounds, you move on to the Quarterfinals, then the Semifinals, then the Final - these three stages will be played best-two-out-of-three matches. ( If I've made any mistakes please correct me!)For more information on Tournaments follow this link: http://spectromancer.com/index.cgi?p=tour If you encounter any issues during a Tournament, an Admin will be present to assist you. Also, as filip said, there is no exchange of Experience during Tournaments - you will neither gain nor lose any exp. by playing. Though exp. will be awarded as a Tournament reward after the Tournament is completed & the results published. The Tournaments are great fun & well organized, I would recommend anyone join in the excitement. srbhkshk | 2014-12-05 13:10:52 |
If only it was 3 hours later, I would have made it. :(
Burillo | 2014-12-05 16:20:50 |
... he Tournaments are great fun & well organized, I would recommend anyone join in the excitement.
thanks for your answer CyberneticPony | 2014-12-07 11:00:58 |
GrimJ0ker | 2014-12-07 19:59:28 |
It works, just delete the final point.
YourLuckyGame | 2014-12-07 21:24:41 |
ТÑанÑлÑÑии Ñ ÑÑÑниÑа как вÑегда на www.prospectro.net
СпаÑибо болÑÑое Ðиле и ÐедалÑ
Modified by YourLuckyGame on 2014-12-07 21:25:09 Wavelength | 2014-12-08 07:32:07 |
Congratulations, John!! Wavelength | 2014-12-10 18:22:17 |
Just a thought here. After I got 2-0'd by Mamoulian (who went on to make the playoffs) in the first round, I got matched against another 0-2 player, DowJones, who I managed to sweep. He proceeded to immediately leave the tournament. So now not only do I not have the opportunity to play the best players for higher Opponent Scores, but I also have an opponent with a guaranteed win total of 0. I knew that from this point I'd need to go 8-2 after a 0-2 start in order to make the playoffs - and despite coming back with four straight wins (for a total of 6-4) after losing two to Odin, who ALSO made the playoffs, I didn't even come close to making the cut. I want to be clear that at 6-4 I didn't deserve to make the cut this month, but if I'd won 7 of my last 8 (as I once did, and barely missed), I might be feeling differently. I see that Countmonk, who finished in 13th with 7 wins, also had the same problem of going 0-2 in the first round. Yes, he got a Bye in the second round (and deserves to get no opponent points for this, to be fair), but assume he had been matched against another 0-2 player, beat him twice, and then the player left. Countmonk would still be in 13th place, with 7 legitimate wins!! Would he really deserve to be so far outside the playoffs? The Swiss pairing system definitely seems to create a lot of exciting play for anyone who does well in the first few rounds, giving anyone who can pull off runs near the end a way to make it in. But for people who lose the first few rounds, I wonder if it's too punishing. Not only do you not get the opportunity to play strong opponents so that you can earn enough points to make a comeback, but anyone you beat after that point is going to know they don't have a shot and sometimes quit, leaving you even further in the hole. A lot of these things are kind of necessary evils to what is otherwise a very fair Swiss system. But I'm left wondering whether maybe a system with completely random pairings might accomplish the tournament's goals better. I don't know. What do you all think?
Modified by Wavelength on 2014-12-10 18:22:54
losing early does mean that you get to play with worse opponents, so indeed you got it easier than some other guy who started the tournament with wins, then lost the same amount of duels at some point later. i believe it is fair for this fact to be depicted in your tie-breaker score. however, you are right that opponents dropping from the tournament should not contribute zero (0) points to this score. for each round that they didn't play (because they dropped) you should get some kind of median score for them, just for the purposes of tie-breaker calculations
Cooler | 2014-12-10 21:16:12 |
After I got 2-0'd by Mamoulian (who went on to make the playoffs) in the first round, I got matched against another 0-2 player, DowJones, who I managed to sweep. He proceeded to immediately leave the tournament. So now not only do I not have the opportunity to play the best players for higher Opponent Scores, but I also have an opponent with a guaranteed win total of 0.
Yes, this made your score the lowest from 6-win players. But... result will be the same if DowJones lost all his duels instead of leaving the event. Well, he's likely to have a bye at some point in case of odd number of players, and in this case your score will be higher. However, just score - but not place. Early leave is bad, what else can I say... Compare to Crazyk, who has the highest additional score points: his weaker opponent was CyberneticPony (p 22), where others were placed much higher.
Modified by Cooler on 2014-12-10 21:25:38 CyberneticPony | 2014-12-11 00:53:35 |
I don't think the scoring system is unfair in the slightest, it's just that it's more obvious from a global perspective than a local one. I am Position 22. You can read this in the following way: Pos 2 (Crazy K) and Pos 6 (mamoulian) are far likely to be much better than me. (I lost 2:0 to them both) I drew with Position 11 (Jeronimo). Pos 21 (Leiva) I have beaten twice. Pos 24 I drew with due to bad luck in one of the games.
Yet, despite the draw with a likely better player, balancing out bad luck with Position 24, I am still ranked underneath a player I smashed 2:0, despite the gap with Pos 11 being way larger than the gap with Pos 24. This may LOOK like bad scoring just seeing my results only, but now take a look at the global perspective.
Leiva played against more average opponents than me. Leiva had more consistent wins across that range. Leiva therefore is scored above me by a tiny amount. Leiva in that regard has done better than me, because I did not succeed in scoring anything against the higher 2 players, and I have chalked a loss against a player that was placed lower than me.
The system tries to place people with the lowest degree of uncertainty into their positions. This DOES mean that it won't be 100% accurate for all positions, but it's as close as you can get within 5 sweeps. At the end of the day though, all the initial tournament system is trying to do is determine a top 8. If you're not in the top 8, you don't need to take the result too seriously, just treat it as an estimate of where you are in relation to the other players. But the system is extremely proficient at getting the best 8 players.
Cooler does know what he's doing.
Cooler | 2014-12-11 07:29:10 |
Cooler does know what he's doing.
Wavelength | 2014-12-11 11:29:15 |
Heh, that is an awesome sweatshirt!!
The system works really well as far as "fairly" defining your place within a short time, and I think the opponent wins are a good system as well because they reflect opponent strength - the one drawback I was highlighting is that people who 0-2 the first round don't really have any hope to move on (in a 5-round Swiss) because of the pairing system, and I have no idea whether that's widely recognized as something important.
CyberneticPony | 2014-12-12 13:50:34 |
Heh, that is an awesome sweatshirt!!
The system works really well as far as "fairly" defining your place within a short time, and I think the opponent wins are a good system as well because they reflect opponent strength - the one drawback I was highlighting is that people who 0-2 the first round don't really have any hope to move on (in a 5-round Swiss) because of the pairing system, and I have no idea whether that's widely recognized as something important. Isn't that because losing 0-2 first round means you are unlikely to move on anyway?
Wavelength | 2014-12-12 18:54:15 |
Isn't that because losing 0-2 first round means you are unlikely to move on anyway? No... well, yes and no. What if the #1 player played against the #3 player in the first round and beat them 2-0? The #3 player doesn't have the chance to "prove themselves" by taking on opponents in rounds 2 and 3 that have already gotten wins, and winning most of those games. In practice they will need to win 8 games in a row to qualify, and in a big tournament (up to 100 players are allowed, although I don't think we've ever had quite that many in a single tourney) even winning 8 straight probably wouldn't be enough. If I'm a lone dissenting voice here, then it definitely means that I'm wrong, but that's why I'm asking around, because I'm curious what the majority thinks. The Swiss System definitely does what it's meant to do very well; my feeling is that since there are only a small number of rounds, it's best to keep hope alive for as many people as possible for as long as possible, even if it means more randomness.
Modified by Wavelength on 2014-12-12 22:21:41 CyberneticPony | 2014-12-13 13:52:18 |
... No... well, yes and no. What if the #1 player played against the #3 player in the first round and beat them 2-0?
The #3 player doesn't have the chance to "prove themselves" by taking on opponents in rounds 2 and 3 that have already gotten wins, and winning most of those games. In practice they will need to win 8 games in a row to qualify, and in a big tournament (up to 100 players are allowed, although I don't think we've ever had quite that many in a single tourney) even winning 8 straight probably wouldn't be enough.
If I'm a lone dissenting voice here, then it definitely means that I'm wrong, but that's why I'm asking around, because I'm curious what the majority thinks. The Swiss System definitely does what it's meant to do very well; my feeling is that since there are only a small number of rounds, it's best to keep hope alive for as many people as possible for as long as possible, even if it means more randomness.
Can you give an example tournament where a player loses 2:0 round 1 and then fails to qualify after 8 straight wins?
Wavelength | 2014-12-13 14:55:13 |
Can you give an example tournament where a player loses 2:0 round 1 and then fails to qualify after 8 straight wins? Tournaments 8 and 17 are good examples - it's less frequent than I would
have thought, but extrapolate those to 100 players and there would
almost certainly be people with 8 wins that would fail to make the cut. My bigger concern, though, is not with the fringe cases where 8:2 is bumped, but moreso with the more common cases where a 7:3 is bumped and because a 0:2 start against another good player forced them into easier opponents in future rounds. You can argue that part of the reason they went 7:1 after their 0:2 start is because they got such easy opponents; therefore they don't deserve to make it, and that's fair. But why do they not deserve the opportunity to prove their mettle against tougher opponents? I really hope I do not sound ungrateful here. I enjoy these tournaments so much, win or lose, as a cool opportunity to bring together some of the community's best. But those times where it's the final two rounds and I feel like I have a chance to get into the spotlight... those are truly special. It's from that position that I argue in favor of keeping hope alive for as many participants for as long as possible. Cooler | 2014-12-14 09:55:01 |
Tournaments 8 and 17 are good examples - it's less frequent than I would have thought, but extrapolate those to 100 players and there would almost certainly be people with 8 wins that would fail to make the cut.
Maybe you meant tournament 7? In 8 and 17 all players who won at least 7 duels were qualified. Sometimes 7 is not enough: this happens when you lose 3 duels in first 2 rounds to weak or average players. Then, yes - you'll probably have weak opponents until the end and even 7 wins won't be enough. I suppose this can be fixed, but I'm not sure that another approach will be better for everyone. For example, if a raising player is matched against stronger opponent - he may score less wins and this won't be very fair too. I doubt if it's possible to fairly rank players using only 10 duels, considering how random they can be.
how about my suggestion at least? avoid penalizing the player for any of his/her opponents that may have dropped. for purposes of calculating the player's tie-break score, give the droppers 1 out of 2 wins per round after they dropped
Modified by filip on 2014-12-14 18:40:28 Cooler | 2014-12-14 21:44:20 |
how about my suggestion at least? avoid penalizing the player for any of his/her opponents that may have dropped. for purposes of calculating the player's tie-break score, give the droppers 1 out of 2 wins per round after they dropped
Why 1, not 0.5 or 0.1? It's very likely that dropper won't win any duel.
... Why 1, not 0.5 or 0.1? It's very likely that dropper won't win any duel.
is it?
the swiss system would pair the dropper with others of the same results (for example, that would be people with zero wins if he/she had zero wins at the time of dropping)
Modified by filip on 2014-12-14 22:12:35 |