I have a question.

[Guest]

How are gonna choose a winner. We have 3 tiers? by the end of the tourney. lol.

Playoffs? just a question not tryin to annoy anyone here.

[Shalk]

the answer is yes... we will have a playoffs.

[chochochum]

lol whew, not the only one wondering about that

[Gragoon]

yea I wondered about that too but I thought that the adins must have an solution otherwise they wouldnt have started that with 3 tiers

[Miagi]

Well, the official answer is we are still deciding :P. But it looks like everyone is suggesting a round robin.

[GRITS]

We have a ways to go before we have to decide, your input is helpful in our decision, so go for it, we will let you know as soon as we have a decision, seems I added a tier to include everyone and it opened the debate with the refs and me on the best way to finish

[Miagi]

We talked it over some last night and again today. It looks like round robin is the way.

It'll go like this, no particular order.

Player1 will play Player2
Player2 will play Player3
Player3 will play Player1

Now to figure out who gets first place, second, and third.




The person with the most WINS earns first place, so like we are doing now. Second place the person with less wins but more than 3rd, and 3rd last.

If someone wins both of the 2 matches, then they automatically earn first place, second place the person who wins 1, last the person who wins none.

If there's a two-way tie, we will have a tie-breaker match.



Now to put in some numbers for you to understand completely.

If all win one match.
1player wins against 2player == 1player won with 30 wins
2player wins against 3player == 2player won with 40 wins
3player wins against 1player == 3player won with 10 wins

1st place - 2Player for having 40 wins in their one match.
2nd - 1Player for having 30 wins in their one match.
3rd - 3Player, obvious reasons.

Ties will be broken with a tie-break match, if there's a 3-way tie all play again.





If someone wins two matches.
1player wins against 2player == 1player won with 30 wins
2player wins against 3player == 2player won with 40 wins
1player wins against 3player == 1player won with 10 wins

1st place - 1Player for winning two matches
2nd - 2Player for winning 1 of their matches
3rd - 3Player, obvious reasons.

[g-boy]

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.

[Miagi]

While that approach gave some thought I don't see the difference.

You're saying if someone whoops another player fast enough to get 10 wins, and the other players win with less than 5, that person isn't the best?

All 3 of them play each other therefore everyone has an equal chance to score higher...

Using wins is more than fair. You have to beat your opponent in 3 rounds to get 1 win.. Honestly if someone gets beat that quick by one of the players, then I think they are the best since they play the other player(whom if is as equal should get as high points).

To sum it up, you're saying they are all equally good , but if that's so they should all have a fair chance at becoming top score in one of their matches since they play the same people.

[g-boy]

But you're oversimplifying it... whether it's sports or video or computer games, it's not just about "the best wins the quickest." It's about matchups... take the players I used for an example. Again, I match up against acid in a way that it takes a long time to complete the matches. A lot of wins may be piled up in quick wins between vash and acid. We could have a close game, like a 7-6 or something, and they could have a close game, like 12-11... but somehow those twelve wins are worth more and show more skill than the 7 in the other match? And you say you don't see the difference... I showed the difference.

By win total:
Player1 beats Player2, 10-7
Player2 beats Player3, 8-7
Player3 beats Player1, 7-1

1st: Player1, 2nd: Player2, 3rd: Player3

By margin of victory:
Player1 - 3
Player2 - 1
Player3 - 8

1st: Player3, 2nd: Player1, 3rd: Player2

By combination margin of victory and loss:
Player1: -3
Player2: -2
Player3: +7

1st: Player3, 2nd: Player2, 3rd: Player1

I just showed three different results, all with possible scores, or scores potentially similar. You would say that player1 was the best? He won a decent game, got destroyed, but because he piled up enough wins he is the best and the winner. Whereas take a look at player3... he only narrowly lost and then won convincingly... who seems to be the best and get the better of the two? Just because he slipped up one or two rounds in a match and he took a longer time to get wins (I take a long time, I'm more patient and calculated), you're gonna drop him to third when he arguably played the best. My ideas aren't a great system either, I can see where it would fail to show the best... I'm just saying total wins in a victory does not show who the best is.

[_Acid_Head_]

I thought by "wins" we were talking about match wins, not the actual score for wins.

Most wins wouldn't be fair, but how it's been explained by the admins, looks to me like they agree with both of us.

(just read down to Miagi's post)

No dude, no:P

[Miagi]

I know the difference gboy, I meant I don't see the difference in the fairness..

I think I remember seeing the margin of victory solution brought up in the admin channel.

If a player throws on a bunch of wins because he kills fast then thats his strategy of playing. So its unfair to the slower playing people so basically ignore the faster players wins.

Usually a fast killing player has better reaction time and quicker aim to get those wins so fast. That's my reasoning to why its fair.

The problem with the margin of victory is players can play it 'safe' and it can become a camping fest. If I got 2 wins and the other player has 0, I'd just keep away and not even try to kill him to run the time out. While the other way, it would matter how many wins a player has making them kill for more.




Acid, I don't know what you're saying no to and I don't know where you see the other admins explaining anything.

And by wins, I mean those little numbers under the title "Wins" in the scoreboard.


Oh and 7 - 1 = 6 not 8

[Power and Glory]

Well I guess we have to hope someone goes 2-0 in round robin to avoid this mess ;)

Anyway both ideas have merit even though both have flaws. Therefore no one way is the best way to do it having 3 in the finals. I'm sure if the round robin ends with all 3 going 1-1 (though the chance of that happening is slim) someone is going to feel bad anyway with how the tie is broken.

[_Acid_Head_]

If a player throws on a bunch of wins because he kills fast then thats his strategy of playing. So its unfair to the slower playing people so basically ignore the faster players wins.

Usually a fast killing player has better reaction time and quicker aim to get those wins so fast. That's my reasoning to why its fair.

This is what I'm saying "no" to.

Getting kills fast has absolutely nothing to do with how skilled someone is, this is something that sets Ricochet appart from other FPS games. Everyone has their own unique style, when two skilled players match up, the game will always be different, some players have bad defensive skills against other player's offensive moves, the offensive player will realize this and get kills fast. When two equally good player fight, it's sometimes hard for either to get a kill off because of how defensive both players might be forced to play in a serious game.

This has been pretty obvious as of late on the 24/7 arena server, lots of players losing to different people that they wouldn't expect to lose to because it's hard getting the style down, and countering it effectively and consistantly. At the same time, people that probably wouldn't be considered "skilled" to you, Miagi, could destroy the faster players. Again, it's not about speed, speed is not strategy, winning the match shows who has the superior strategy knowledge, and the better of the two ricochet players.

Please don't talk about the pro-game if you haven't got a damn clue. Thanks.

[Miagi]

Actually, just because I don't play arena doesn't mean I am not qualified to post and defend stuff here Acid...

We have a ways to go before we have to decide, your input is helpful in our decision, so go for it.

[GRITS]

All input is appreciated

enough trying to figure out how to determine who is best....there are flaws in all the systems, you all said as much

lets take it to the final three and see how it goes, I personally dont think it is going to come down to 1 game each so it wont matter.

regardless we have to have some way to match you up and this is best for now

1 plays 2
1 plays 3
2 plays 3

then the three refs will make a decision on the best way to play out a three way tie if it happens