|
re: Tiebreakers.
Kills/Time stats don't make sense - instead could you use group stage performance? i.e. assign arbitrary point values for rankings 1-16 (rank 1 is worth most points, rank 16 worth least) - in case of tie, tally points based on who beat who and whoever "performed" better during group stages moves on.
|
|
Niiiiice razes thought the tower was gonna go down for Mushi
|
So much for Secret being undefeated.
|
On February 03 2015 16:52 goody153 wrote: that's for starcraft you scrubs poweroverwhelming was the first word I could touch type.
|
Philippines85 Posts
On February 03 2015 16:52 cravin74 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:48 jackdr wrote:On February 03 2015 16:44 rebdomine wrote:On February 03 2015 16:43 jackdr wrote: how about having a constant rather than having everything else variable? like, have them play the next lowest ranked team (ie 11th in this case) whoever loses is eliminated, whichever team wins (if ever 2 teams win) they get to play each other and whichever team wins gets to advance.
but that still counts on having one team lose vs the 11th ranked team. This makes the 11th ranked team play more games than they should. Why should they play more games when they're already qualified? yeah i edited it in right before i saw your reply. it doesn't really affect the 11th ranked team, but it still depends if they're willing to do that for the sake of avoiding possible endless tiebreakers. so yeah, a possible solution for tiebreakers but still wouldn't justify itself lol The 11th place team has no incentive to perform. They might try for the first game and then get bored and screw the next two games.
or possibly give games away to teams they favor. which why i really don't like RR type (i like GSL group stage better) but in tournaments such as these, classic rr is just the way to go.
|
On February 03 2015 16:53 StUfF wrote: re: Tiebreakers.
Kills/Time stats don't make sense - instead could you use group stage performance? i.e. assign arbitrary point values for rankings 1-16 (rank 1 is worth most points, rank 16 worth least) - in case of tie, tally points based on who beat who and whoever "performed" better during group stages moves on.
if i understood what you mean
between CDEC , tongfu and rave can't do the "who beats who" mechanic since they had a rock-paper-scissors situation on the first tiebreaker and the group stages.
|
On February 03 2015 16:54 cravin74 wrote:poweroverwhelming was the first word I could touch type. show me the money show me the money black sheep wall operation cwal
that's how roll when i have not discovered multiplayer yet
|
On February 03 2015 16:56 goody153 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:53 StUfF wrote: re: Tiebreakers.
Kills/Time stats don't make sense - instead could you use group stage performance? i.e. assign arbitrary point values for rankings 1-16 (rank 1 is worth most points, rank 16 worth least) - in case of tie, tally points based on who beat who and whoever "performed" better during group stages moves on.
if i understood what you mean between CDEC , tongfu and rave can't do the "who beats who" mechanic since they had a rock-paper-scissors situation on the first tiebreaker and the group stages. I think he's suggesting that you evaluate how the tied teams performed against all the other teams but with a higher weightage for beating higher placed teams.
|
Philippines85 Posts
On February 03 2015 16:57 goody153 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:54 cravin74 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:52 goody153 wrote: that's for starcraft you scrubs poweroverwhelming was the first word I could touch type. show me the money show me the money black sheep wall operation cwal that's how roll when i have not discovered multiplayer yet
with you on this. typing this as fast as i could back then helped me very much in learning to type fast and accurate lol
OnT: WP Rave. I just hope all this won't go to waste as the lower bracket is just Bo1. hmm
|
On February 03 2015 16:53 StUfF wrote: re: Tiebreakers.
Kills/Time stats don't make sense - instead could you use group stage performance? i.e. assign arbitrary point values for rankings 1-16 (rank 1 is worth most points, rank 16 worth least) - in case of tie, tally points based on who beat who and whoever "performed" better during group stages moves on.
So instead of having tied teams play for their own elimination (even if there are arbitrary stipulations), let's just pick arbitrary numbers and eliminate two right off the bat?
|
On February 03 2015 16:57 goody153 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:54 cravin74 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:52 goody153 wrote: that's for starcraft you scrubs poweroverwhelming was the first word I could touch type. show me the money show me the money black sheep wall operation cwal that's how roll when i have not discovered multiplayer yet
thegathering
These were the first few lines I could type real fast :D
|
On February 03 2015 16:59 DucK- wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:57 goody153 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:54 cravin74 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:52 goody153 wrote: that's for starcraft you scrubs poweroverwhelming was the first word I could touch type. show me the money show me the money black sheep wall operation cwal that's how roll when i have not discovered multiplayer yet thegathering These were the first few lines I could type real fast :D show me the money
was the fastest shit i could type when i was young rofl
On February 03 2015 16:59 jackdr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:57 goody153 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:54 cravin74 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:52 goody153 wrote: that's for starcraft you scrubs poweroverwhelming was the first word I could touch type. show me the money show me the money black sheep wall operation cwal that's how roll when i have not discovered multiplayer yet with you on this. typing this as fast as i could back then helped me very much in learning to type fast and accurate lol OnT: WP Rave. I just hope all this won't go to waste as the lower bracket is just Bo1. hmm
well i didn't really type much when i was young outside cheatcodes anyways :D
You just have to believe that PINOY DOTA BEST DOTA
|
i can vouche that SEA is the most toxic region you will ever play.
|
On February 03 2015 17:11 goody153 wrote: i can vouche that SEA is the most toxic region you will ever play.
it's so god awful, especially when they queue AUS server....
|
Still kinda surprised that SEA is more toxic than NA
|
Osaka27149 Posts
On February 03 2015 17:13 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 17:11 goody153 wrote: i can vouche that SEA is the most toxic region you will ever play. it's so god awful, especially when they queue AUS server....
Totally agree, but SEA and Australia are the only regions I am under 200 ping on. Whenever I hear an Australian voice on my team I feel so happy.
|
Philippines85 Posts
to some extents it probably is. but in sc2 though i found more bm in NA than SEA (back when SEA was *more* alive than it is now)
it's less toxic in ranked mm though. or maybe it just depends on timing lol
|
United States13143 Posts
hahahahahaha what on earth is going on
|
On February 03 2015 16:59 cravin74 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2015 16:56 goody153 wrote:On February 03 2015 16:53 StUfF wrote: re: Tiebreakers.
Kills/Time stats don't make sense - instead could you use group stage performance? i.e. assign arbitrary point values for rankings 1-16 (rank 1 is worth most points, rank 16 worth least) - in case of tie, tally points based on who beat who and whoever "performed" better during group stages moves on.
if i understood what you mean between CDEC , tongfu and rave can't do the "who beats who" mechanic since they had a rock-paper-scissors situation on the first tiebreaker and the group stages. I think he's suggesting that you evaluate how the tied teams performed against all the other teams but with a higher weightage for beating higher placed teams.
But you should also have a higher weightage for losing to worse teams, and they will even out because your records are tied. Which comes back to the same kind of chicken and egg argument that time rating brings out - is it more important to beat the strongest teams or not lose to the weakest teams?
|
|
|
|