Well. We knew this is going to happen before the last week. Even though it may be undeserved, it ended up like this and Administration already stated that they will make no changes to the results/format. So why should you guys suggest a change when it was already addressed and the suggestion/question answered?.. Not like I wouldn't be up for such change... but I don't see it coming.
[WNL6] Suggestions
- Thread starter Scar
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
What's undeserved?
๖Kern said:
The tiger and lion may be more powerful... but the Wolf does not perform in circus.
You shot for the moon, at least you landed among the stars kern. 
I am deeply dissapointed with how the tournament went. Feels like being couched with great lance at full speed while being that one inf with an awlpike.
Not blaming the admins or anything. No one could predict such an outcome and no changes should be made when the tourney is still going.
However, no rules like this should ever apply, the amount of randomness is totally out of control.
Not blaming the admins or anything. No one could predict such an outcome and no changes should be made when the tourney is still going.
However, no rules like this should ever apply, the amount of randomness is totally out of control.
You shot for the Himalayas, but you landed exactly on Mt Everest)m1tchell23 said:You shot for the moon, at least you landed among the stars kern.
))
The rematches were unfortunate and probably avoidable, that's our bad. However losing 3 times to a team that ends up in the middle of the top 6 and not getting into the KO stage isn't really random.
We're giving it a small period to see who is willing to keep going. If it looks ok balance wise I'll set things up tomorrow.
OurGloriousLeader said:
Losing 3 times to one team isn't random at all. Playing against just one potentially top team and still ending up at the top, however, is random. Don't take it as an attack, I just think it is a bit unfair.
I don't take it as an attack and please don't assume I'm insulting you or your team. Reunited are obviously on paper filled with good players and are a contender for the top spot, and AE definitely had an easier run. My point is simply that people assume the KO stage should be a given, predetermined almost, and that if it's not 100% correct then it's a failure. R may have had a harder run, as did for example GWB, but if they fail to succeed in that harder run then they may as well have simply been knocked out at the KO stage. If you lose 3x vs Unity, I don't see how we can assume you'd do any better in the KO. Another decent team, GP, didn't make it but they lost to **, FT, and AE - in effect they already had their KO stage and failed to make it.
Without round robin, we can only use systems like this to semi-accurately judge what teams deserve to be called winner. Even the KO stage itself is just an arbitrary limit to avoid round robin and try to narrow the teams down.
Again, not saying you're bad, Unity are a good team too. Except Caius.
Without round robin, we can only use systems like this to semi-accurately judge what teams deserve to be called winner. Even the KO stage itself is just an arbitrary limit to avoid round robin and try to narrow the teams down.
Again, not saying you're bad, Unity are a good team too. Except Caius.
Individual team performance shouldn't be used as an example to defend the system. Fact is that it favoured certain teams due to its nature while others got cucked.
I'm not saying GP got cucked btw, we didn't deserve to go to knockouts with how badly we performed.
I'm not saying GP got cucked btw, we didn't deserve to go to knockouts with how badly we performed.
There are definite improvements to be made, I liked a lot of Harman's suggestions. But on the same note, individual team results shouldn't be used to complain about final placements. At the end of the day you need to win your matches.
Yeah I agree, at least for R. GP lost three times in a row to three different teams that all made it to knockout, no arguing that we deserve to be there. Kinda rough for R, feel for them.
The whole "well how far would they get in knockout if they lost 3 times to unity" doesn't ring true to me, unless you expect malta to do better based on their better results versus worse teams. No disrespect to malta, while the tournament has had some upsets, it's still nice to see an unexpected team qualify imo.
The whole "well how far would they get in knockout if they lost 3 times to unity" doesn't ring true to me, unless you expect malta to do better based on their better results versus worse teams. No disrespect to malta, while the tournament has had some upsets, it's still nice to see an unexpected team qualify imo.
Well if I was betting, no I don't think Malta would do better than Reunited. But we don't "know" that from results. We do "know" Reunited likely wouldn't do well, because they lost.
OurGloriousLeader said:
Yeah, I too liked alot of his ideas. And I'm glad that changes will be made. But my concern is that, logically speaking, lower table teams are potentially easier to beat than upper table teams. Thus some teams got "luckier" in their matchups than, as example, R. R didn't even get as many chances as other teams to prove themselves against various opponents
Was mentioned before, that a 'Can't play same team twice or 3 times (in a row?)' rule was needed but was too late to implement mid tourney.
Also keep in mind that basically all the tournaments up until this WNL have been guinea pig test tourneys for the forthcoming Permaladder.
Also keep in mind that basically all the tournaments up until this WNL have been guinea pig test tourneys for the forthcoming Permaladder.
GlorvalhirSRB said:
There is a rule that a team wont play teh same team twice in a row and it was applied.
I am not sure there could be a better formulation, you just end up moving the problem rather than solving it, though I do think Harman's ideas could be tried.
how will the Buchholz score work in the last ladderstage weeks? The teams which dropped out wont win matches anymore, the teams in the Knockoutstage neither. Is there a rule for this? Wouldnt be fair to keep it like it is, but on the other side if it is removed teams with a high BHS like GP wouldnt get an advantage from that they played toptier teams in the previous weeks.
I dont think Buchholz is designed for tournaments with teams leaving it
I dont think Buchholz is designed for tournaments with teams leaving it
- Status
