[Complete] TOURNAMENT: King of the Frontier!

[neki]

By the way Doc:

1. Dauntless is first with 3 wins. Then comes second place:

2. TBS - 2 wins - 1 brutal win (correct that) - 2 brutal losses
2. Kolbur - 2 wins - 1 brutal win - 0 brutal losses
2. neki - 2 wins - 2 brutal wins - 2 brutal losses

Just for the sake of the show, I sincerely and without any interest or personal gain ) suggest that the person with the highest number of brutal wins goes further. If it happens that 2 players have the same ammount of brutal wins, then we go to the player with the least amount of brutal losses, just like in the Olimpics: First country is the country with the most GOLD medals, not the country with the most medals overall .

So what do u think ?

Cheers!

neki

EDIT: If you cannot decide which criteria to use and which player to advance, I will gladly play a TIE GAME vs. Kolbur on Arcanclave, one single game, the winner goes further. I think actually this would be the best option since the rules for the brutal win/losses criteria were not clear from the beginning

[The Black Sword]

Eh, if you're abandoning the brutal conditions completely then you can't leave me out!
I suggest the only fair solution is to play on a new 3p map with the winner going through .

More seriously, I don't think I'm going to get involved in the tie break fight for 2nd place. Thanks for a fun second game Daunt and sorry for taking so long. I might be going on a small wesbreak for a while so good luck to everyone with the rest of the tournament.

[neki]

Actually, the 3p map sounds cool! Good idea, TBS! Doc, what's the admin's decision ?

[soul_steven]

I personally think it should go by your win loss record not "brutal or unbrutal wins" Overall Kolbur has a better win percentage so to me he should be the one to advance. Again though it all comes down to admins decision a tiebreaker game would be kinda cool though! On another note had a really fun time filling in and getting to play with the best of the best

[Doc Paterson]

Iyieyie. Sorry for the delay- Life has been hectic lately, what with these weekend classes I've been taking.

I know the idea was something to the effect of determining advancement by "brutal wins and brutal losses," but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's as simple as "who has the most brutal wins." A ratio of brutal wins to brutal losses would make the most sense to me, for example, 1 brutal win and no brutal losses being superior to 1 brutal win and 1 brutal loss, or 2 brutal wins, 2 brutal losses. It's a tough call, and before I make a decision, I'd like to get a few more votes.

The options:

1. Decide it by *overall* record (total win percentage, taking all rounds played into account).

2. Decide by *most* brutal wins.

3. Decide based on a ratio of brutal wins to brutal losses (will likely achieve results close to choice #1).

4. Decide with tie-breaker 1v1s. I'm thinking a quick round-robin between the 3 tied players, but feel free to propose an alternative "showdown" format.

5. The 1v1v1 idea. This seems a little crazy to me, as it'd be very political, but if you guys want it, I will not say no.

[soul_steven]

Option 1 or 3 seem most logical to me

[Scatha]

I'll just unlurk to point out where (1) and (3) could differ.

First: neither of them distinguishes between the case of e.g. (2 brutal wins and 2 brutal losses) vs (1 brutal win and 1 brutal loss, 1 regular win and 1 regular loss)

Second: They differ in what they say is better between (1 brutal win and 1 regular win, 2 regular losses) and (2 brutal wins, 1 brutal loss and 1 regular loss). Specifically, method 1) says that the second one is better, while method 3) says that the first is.

(I'm not really a part of this, but for what it's worth these two methods seem the sensible ones to me)

[Dauntless]

since the round is finished its hard to say which criterion seems most logical, since stating an answer equals sending somebody further, its hard to stay objective. In the rules there was a vague mention about brutal wins being number two decider, but im not sure if it was clear if its ratio or absolute value. But either way it should be either neki or kolbur to advance. So perhaps a duel between those two?

[neki]

Yep, no matter the criteria used, it's me or Kolbur that will go on. Since the critera was not defined initially (like Daunt said) coming up with the criterai now "that will make most sense" is actually choosing between me and Kolbur. More attention should have been paid initially by the tournament administrator to the tie criteria .

I remember neki saying: "we should discriminate ties based on number of brutal wins, losses" and Doc saying "Agree". That is the only initial rule we have regarding ties! If we are to be fair and unbiased we should ask neki what he meant, and neki meant: in case of a tie, the player with most brutal wins goes further, in case the number of brutal wins is also tied, the player with least brutal losses goes further. neki clearly didn't use any words like "brutal win-loss ratio or difference"

But since I am such a nice person, I am willing to play a tie-breaker match on Arcanclave vs. Kolbur, just for the crowd . Should the crowd want a 1 vs 1 vs 1 would be a crazy idea which I would love. Can we have a cheer for a 1 vs 1 vs 1 ?

Cheers!

neki

[soul_steven]

This is why the rules should have been made clear from the beggining.. Really teh round robin round should have been everyone playing 3 matches no matter what and whoever has the most wins moves to next round that would have been the simpliest solution to avoid this situation! Although now that that isn't possible its really hard to say what is the fairest way to do it. a 1vs1vs1 sounds pretty outlandish an idea though if you ask me

[Rigor]

hi i just want to remind you of this one (which has a non-corrupted rp btw )

@Rigor: Well, I've read only the first paragraph so I don't spoil the fun of live casting the match, but sadly I won't be able to cast as much as I would want to in the following weeks. I'll do my best to cast the replay you and other great guys out there (Doc, soul_steven) sent me.

and of the fact that the two of you played vs each other already, resulting in a brutal loss for neki. now its funny how you argue that you should make up on arcanclave and im sure that kolbur sees this in a different light as well.

.............................. G............. W........... L .......... BW ............ BL ........
neki..................│......4......│......2......│......2......│......2......│......2......
Kolbur...............│......4......│......2......│......2......│......1......│......0......

i think two BL are worse than 0 BL and i would give kolbur the right of way. it means "i consistently played better" =)

[neki]

Rigor, again, this is not about what seems right or what does not seem right as this can vary from player to player from sympathy to antipathy from friendship to being enemies, this is a about rules! We only had one tie-breaker rule: my rule, which Doc approved. Now according to this rule, I should advance. However, since things weren't clear and well organized from the beginning, I am willing to play a tie-breaker match vs. Kolbur. I am quoting here the conversation:

In case of WIN TIES at the end of the round robin, discrimination will be made according to the number of brutal wins, brutal losses. For example place 2 and 3 both have 3 wins but place 2 had only brutal wins and no brutal losses while place 3 had no brutal wins and only brutal losses. It is clear that place 2 has to go on! Doc, can we have a KOTF admin approval ?

APPROVED!

I do appreciate the effort of making that wins/losses table. Just clean up the jagged parts.

[Rigor]

im not writing this for YOU, doc will decide, and he needed more votes he said (the reason why i even write here ), so my vote is for kolbur, because of reasons stated above. what about the awesome kolbur-beatup i posted some time ago, page 7 or 8 ??

short recap: u two played already, kolbur won 2 of the games, and if u play a third he won 2 and u maybe 1, see? and besides, when he lost games, he didnt lose 0:2 like you did, and thats why i think hes the one who played better player that should advance.

[soul_steven]

Im doing my best to remain fair and neutral about this however does anyone other then Neki think Neki should advance? I don't think anyone does other then yourself (not that im trying to upset you or anything I just think this is pretty silly) Its very obvious to everyone else who should go to the next round why cant you see it as well?

[Kolbur]

This situation now is exactly the reason why I wanted every player match up to play out all 3 games from the beginning and then determine the ranking by the number of won games. I even wrote down possible tie breaker rules in our little Ladder Map Council Forum. But alas...

I actually hoped Doc would just make a clear call and then we can go on but since he asked for our biased opinions instead here is mine:
To me it's clear which result of the 3 is the better one. 1:0 "brutal" wins:losses is better than 2:2 and 1:2 "brutal" wins/losses. 6:5 wins/losses is better than 4:4 and 4:5 wins/losses. I also already beat neki soundly 2:0 so I see no reason to play a tie breaker game vs him now. All this could do is putting me vs neki to either 3:0 or 2:1 and this wouldn't really clear up the situation much (apart from giving him this opportunity now which I consider quite unfair to me) because I see no reason to suddenly disregard all the other played games. If we really want to drop the "brutal" rule now then The_Black_Sword would have the same right for tie breaking games like we do.

Since Doc called for a vote and gave clear options here is my vote (I also ask everyone to make a clear vote):
3. Decide based on a ratio of brutal wins to brutal losses (will likely achieve results close to choice #1).

This is how I always interpreted neki's scribbling in the most logical way.

...

I remember neki saying: "we should discriminate ties based on number of brutal wins, losses" and Doc saying "Agree". That is the only initial rule we have regarding ties! If we are to be fair and unbiased we should ask neki what he meant, and neki meant: in case of a tie, the player with most brutal wins goes further, in case the number of brutal wins is also tied, the player with least brutal losses goes further. neki clearly didn't use any words like "brutal win-loss ratio or difference"

...

Of course we should ask you of all, because you are completely unbiased too...
The only opinion that matters here is Doc's since he makes the rules so we maybe should ask him how he understood your "rule" when he approved of it. It is not your place in the tournament organisation to interpret the rules to your advantage now.