[Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent   [Hottest Topics] Hottest   [Login] Login
Messages posted by: jb__
Forum Index Profile for jb__ »» Messages posted by jb__
Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
  youownme wrote: I don't think it is a big issue... JB and I are rematching to see if his claims are legitimate... So far it looks as though I am winning both games again.

The issue is there no matter who wins.

And no matter that you do know this map well - your claim to win the 2 games is largely premature
Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
JB won 2 games against Deliann
JB won 2 games against BonGPANDA
JB lost against sim2 (one loss one win)
JB lost against YouOwnMe (2 losses)
Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
  dan1 wrote: okay a few updates.
the 5 turn rule will be dropped for next tourney. it will however be used in the final rounds of this tournament.

Excellent news.

  dan1 wrote:
tie break will first go to most most individual games won. this should at least bring it down to just 2 players in the event of there still being a tie the 2 people will play a rematch. but i feel this is an unlikely event to happen.

This is probably the best way to deal with it - game won is a game won and the direct match is the best tiebreaker.
What do you exactly mean by a rematch - the same map & the same races & the same players?

  dan1 wrote:
regarding invites to games. jb is correct that a more fair way to do it would be to invite the 2 people below you. if you are at the bottom of the group you will of course come to the top of the table for your invites. but this being said although this will make the invites more fair and make some people more happy it was by no means unfair as we are mirrored. the advantage is so marginal and i mean so so marginal. but it is easy enough to introduce this rule to save any future talks on the matter. we will use this rule in final grouping of this tournament.

Yes it is more fair already (and as simple as it gets - requires no lookup whatsoever) if you just invite exactly 2 players who have not invited you yet and let 2 others invite you.
The funny thing is that the same person - one of those who argued here the fairness of setting 8 starting races vs 0 corrected me when I tried to invite him to a game with different starting race . I gave up and ended 0 to 8.

  dan1 wrote:
and sorry to ll those in pandas group i dont have a full understanding what is going on with him there if someone can fill me in. has he resigned? and if so do we have a reason? if this is so unfortunately it is to late to replace him at this stage so he will just be marked as all defeats.

He has just quit stating that he could not play it without any further elaboration. It would be great to replace him if there is someone readily available - we would give his games a time priority.

  dan1 wrote:
please comment on the above if you have any further questions or remarks

many thanks to all

Comments done
Many thanks to you above all!
Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
  simsverd wrote:

1. Disagree (or at least not agree to all)...
There is no possible way to achieve "absolute fairness".. at least when there also is need for a practial and quick way to get the tourney started.. There is ofc room for improvements on how games are assigned. Feel free to share your ideas

While it is true that there is no possible PRACTICAL way to achieve ABSOLUTE fairness, there is a simple way to achieve a fair fairness here and I have already shared it - if the round is of 5 players as it is now you just sent exactly 2 invites to initial matches instead of up to 4. Simple and fair (or at least fairer). What problems would that create?

  simsverd wrote:

Most players at 2500+ are well skilled in all races, and therefore i cant see how a mirror match can be so unfair. Your claim that "The starting race is most often determining what game it is really. " is as far as i see it not backed up by substantial explenations on how this is unfair.
To me i would find it more annoying than unfair that my race choices was somewhat limited....

The thing is that while we may be skilled in all races there is a strategic advantage to be able to impose a race pair on a given map - especially on an unknown map as we deal with them here as we may in that setup be able to foresee the outcome better.

Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
  youownme wrote:

I agree with most of this. Although I had already won panda before he left.

Others may have almost won (or maybe some almost lost?) - the point is that the result is biased unless everyone would have won anyway and that is hard to know 100%.

  youownme wrote:

I'm not sure if it is unfair either, just easier to display my strengths while exploiting anothers weaknesses. Shouldn't be a problem if you are well rounded with all of the races, but most people aren't.

The definition of fairness is equal chance. This is not equal chance - thus unfair.
It prevents one person from choosing the first race in any of 8 games while somebody else has potentially done it for all 8 games.
Would that always be a problem against an inferior player and on any map? Not really. But that is not the point!
You want all other circumstances to be equal so the result can only be attributed to players so if you realize that a tournament rules
are incomplete and that may lead to lack of fairness you just fix it instead of arguing that in same cases it would not matter.

It it probable that you will win our current pair of games - cool move taking that base. I hereby challenge you to win a pair on the same map as well when I will chose the first race - what about that as a proof?

Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
Our first round is well underway. I have initial 3 remarks on the new system:

1) FAIRNESS - the current system is not fair.

Let me explain. Obviously the choice of the first race (starting race) determines the choices of the second race (reaction choice). Then the other game is a mirror.
The choice of a race is very important and depends on the map and our personal preferences/strengths.

I got 4 invites. and replied with 4 mirrors. Thus in 8 games I had 0 free choice of race and 4 secondary/reaction choices. The reaction choice is often forced or limited. The starting race is most often determining what game it is really.

Thus in all my 8 games I had 0 influence on the starting races. Potentially somebody else had selected the starting race in all his 8 games by sending 4 invites first. 0 to 8 - not the fairest setup.

Thus the rules should be amended by having everyone sending only 2 initial invites (if 5 players are involved in a round). This way the influence on races will be equal for all.

2) COMMITMENT - we have had one player leaving (surrendering all games after a few moves). That spoils the whole round for all and wastes the invested time.

Please do not commit to the tournament unless you can really make it.

3) 5 TURNS RULE - I personally think the the 5 turn base holding rule is harmful to the game and should be abandoned as it makes the game strategies poorer. And it is not like someone has written that it shortens the painful mopping up. If you have won in one game the since the games should proceed synchronously one turn latter you can abandon the other game if you are in a hurry - you have already won after all!
Tournaments » dan1 tourney 5 » Go to message
I am in - thanks!
New Feature Request » Hardcore ladder » Go to message
Nothing changes. Why? The current ladder is more or less fossilized... Also most of the time it is not even possible to find a random game when one is in the top 100 or so.

We should petition the developers for a meaningful change. How many in the top 100 are unhappy with the current system?
New Feature Request » Hardcore ladder » Go to message
I would like to submit for players' discussion the following petition to the developers:

Let'a change the ranking ladder or add a new one (call it "hardcore" or such).
The new ranking will not rely on honor or luck and will prevent cheating, transfers etc. and thus reflect closely one's skills at UniWar.

This is what I propose:
1) points for this ranking obtainable only from RANDOM ONE-ON-ONE rounds (see below)
This pseudo random generator will make sure that for each player in 18 rounds he will have exactly one of each (race versus race):
- starting first
S v S, S v K, S v T
K v K, K v S, K v T
T v T, T v S, T v K
- 9 others the same races but the player starts second.
When matching players the generator will look for the closest ranking available player, if none within X points then the first active player directly above the first player.

The game clock will start when the second player makes his first move.
There will be a preference toggle (active, inactive = participation suspended). In order to generate new games one will have to be active (and thus will also accept games generated by others).

- a pseudo random generated one (see point 2)
- a rematch (the same opponents on the same map switch sides, the one who started the first game is second to go in the rematch)

4) Points awards
- The one who wins the 2 games gets points
- In case of 1 to 1 result the one who won with less turns gets points
- In case of 1 to 1 result and both games finished in the same number of turns no one gets points (draw)

-------------------- ----------------------------

What do you think? At least points 1, 3 and 4 should be implemented (very easy)
Forum Index Profile for jb__ »» Messages posted by jb__
Powered by JForum 2.1.9 © - 2020-04-14 v124 - UniWar website