06-12-2005, 02:42 PM
I don't think ranking by wins is fair. Acid, vash, and I were talking about that very thing when we were playing last night. Someone getting less wins in 20 mins has very little to do with skill. Obviously the 3 finalists are all going to be skilled so it may seem logical that the one who wins his rounds the quickest is the best, but not true. Certain players match up differently. The way acid and I match up makes our rounds very long and drawn out... he had only 6 wins in 20 mins against me. I don't match up well against someone like vash or razor... they may get 10-12 wins on me... does that mean they are better than acid? Again, I see the logic in it, theoretically it could work out just fine (like if one of the finalists wins two of the final matches), but if each won one each, and someone got last just for having long rounds... I don't know. I'm still trying to find a solution, because using points or wins as a tiebreaker will not give you an accurate winner.
Actually, a possibility occurred to me. I'll think about it some more to see which would be the best way to work it, but what if we use some kind of calculation of the margin by which someone wins and/or loses their matches in this round robin? So for example player1 beats player2 10-5, player2 beats player3 8-7, player3 beats player1 7-1. Player1 wins by 5, player2 wins by 1, player3 wins by 8. Now again, got some thinking to do, but possibly make it so that we rank it by margin of winning, so by that logic 3 wins, 1 is second, 2 is last. Or add the margin of loss and victory together... so player1 would be -3, player2 would be -4, player3 would be +7. Which do you think would be more accurate? There is a change in ranking depending on which way you go. I think the second method is probably best, mostly because you can see player2 just edged in their match, maybe could have gone either way, and lost pretty badly, so perhaps they deserve 3rd. But if you used the total number of wins in the victory as logic... suddenly player1 is the winner and player2 is ahead of even player3....
Don't bother mentioning that it's unlikely a 7-1 game would happen, I just threw out numbers as examples. A large margin of victory can occur with fewer wins than a close game, again, all depending on matchup. Just think about it.
Actually, a possibility occurred to me. I'll think about it some more to see which would be the best way to work it, but what if we use some kind of calculation of the margin by which someone wins and/or loses their matches in this round robin? So for example player1 beats player2 10-5, player2 beats player3 8-7, player3 beats player1 7-1. Player1 wins by 5, player2 wins by 1, player3 wins by 8. Now again, got some thinking to do, but possibly make it so that we rank it by margin of winning, so by that logic 3 wins, 1 is second, 2 is last. Or add the margin of loss and victory together... so player1 would be -3, player2 would be -4, player3 would be +7. Which do you think would be more accurate? There is a change in ranking depending on which way you go. I think the second method is probably best, mostly because you can see player2 just edged in their match, maybe could have gone either way, and lost pretty badly, so perhaps they deserve 3rd. But if you used the total number of wins in the victory as logic... suddenly player1 is the winner and player2 is ahead of even player3....
Don't bother mentioning that it's unlikely a 7-1 game would happen, I just threw out numbers as examples. A large margin of victory can occur with fewer wins than a close game, again, all depending on matchup. Just think about it.