| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Yes I think several players will be able to snag 1 pt.
|
|
|
1 Soli
2 Needle
14 Invul
3 GOUT
4 kikoho
5 azorius
6 EVR1022
7 Vogon Jeltz
8 Kroeger
9 earth
10 SnakeHK
11 Michaelrn
Not seeing any upsets this rd....
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
We play 1v1 match live (preferably mirror it) and we discuss real-time what we are thinking as we play through each turn. Would be happy to be part of it. Would love to hear someone like gout, legia, or azorious play real-time.
|
|
|
|
Ticket002
|
|
|
|
Bubba Watson
|
|
|
|
Ticket 3 cause it looks fun
|
|
|
miamimoose wrote:Am I allowed to vote?! SHUT UP BAKES!!! Sometimes I makes mistakes 
While I was having a bit of a go, I really was hoping for predictions filled with exclamation marks, capitalization, and incendiary commentary from you..
|
|
|
|
miamimoose wrote:Am I aloud to vote?!
Only if it's loud.
|
|
|
|
I'll play if there is still openings
|
|
|
A little late for predictions but heres mine anyway. Imo Willingham and evr have to be the favorites but both can't make final 4.
Duaneski, hex, red five, and evr.
I accidentally spotted tass 50 credits because I forgot to cap a base first round in one game.
|
|
|
|
Uniwar is my gf number one enemy. Phrases like "all you do is play that stupid game", "I hate that game", and "I'm going to take that phone away from you" are common.
|
|
|
Bakes
EST
|
|
|
|
Duaneski wrote:
In other news, I am honestly unclear on how your proposed system is different than the current system.... it really does seem the same to me...
Main purpose is to eliminate purposely getting games out of sync to advance. (see scenario in post above) it is not all that rare scenario and why allow it to happen when we can easily eliminate it.
Duaneski wrote:
Edit: so if I am reading this correctly, basically what you added of consequence for 1v1 is 4. Bases capped in time exp losses?
Not quite. The main change is that in the event both games expire by time, those games are decided by what round number it is, rather by #bases (see updated rules in response to simsverd) and then kills. So if games are out of sync it doesn't really matter.
Duaneski wrote:
Edit 2: okay so if I win one and lose one, the person who captures more bases in their loss moves on... this seems likely to be a rare occurrence? I guess that covers a potential problem?
Well I changed it slightly to #bases in time expired games (in response to simsverd) which actually slightly improves to cover some rare possibilities and also works for team/group play. So yes in the event that in 1v1 both games time expire, it will come down to who had the most # bases at the end.
Duaneski wrote:
I guess I am not sure if it is worth adding as It isn't completely clear or logical (not that the current system necessarily is... but it is simple - rounds, credits)
It is logical (I challenge you to show that it isn't), and in general works the same way as current for most cases but improves in the cases where the current system fails. For deciding winners of expired games bases are given more importance to credits, so there is precedent.
|
|
|
|
simsverd wrote:I can agree that current system isnt perfect, but i cant see how this idea is fundamentally different.
Currently if you are getting smashed in one game but have a slight lead in the other and time expires, if you are able to get the one you are losing advanced 1 round ahead of the other game you advance despite obviously doing worse. These proposed rules would eliminate that possibility. This is not an infrequent occurrence, and some players purposely get games out of sync for this reason. In this scenario, tiebreaker 4 or 5 (updated rules below) will end up determining who advances, which is a more just outcome.
simsverd wrote:
- it does not remove the possibility and incentive to play for time
It certainly reduces the incentive to play for time, which is why it is an improvement to the current system. (It would eliminate it with the more complex programming that doesn't let one game advance more than one full round ahead of the other.) Please provide a counter example of how someone would manipulate time in their advantage.
simsverd wrote:
- it have a different system for 1:1 and group play - which it cant have - system have to be the same for simplistic reasons.
We can use the following rule set that will work in all cases (1:1 and group play), and is a minor improvement from above:
1. Most points (win=3, draw=1, loss=0)
2. Most number wins completed before time expires.
3. Least number rounds in wins completed before time expires
4. Most # bases in time expired games
5. Highest total value units killed
6. Highest number rounds in time expired losses
7. Coin flip
simsverd wrote:
We are currently testing with the next championship to be able to prolong all rounds - not only the finals. If this goes well (and not use much more time for the tourney total) then we will deploy that rule for all tourneys.
This will probably remove most of the issue with playing for time.
http://www.uniwar.com/tournament.page?tournament=championshipnovember2016
That's fine but unnecessary, with the proposed rules the deserved outcome will happen almost always and likely to speed up play because of that, even in tournaments with shorter number of days.
|
![[Search]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_search.gif){kind=icon}
![[Recent Topics]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_recentTopics.gif){kind=icon}
![[Login]](/templates/default/images/icon_mini_login.gif){kind=icon}
Login
