[NC2014] Suggestions

Sir Icorda

Knight at Arms
WB
Best answers
0
Maximka said:
I ask anyone who is in love with one of you?

Lust and you or you're in it
You should really let someone that actually knows how to speak english properly post for you lol

I am in love with X, if that was the question *blush*
 

Alene

The Queen of Diamonds
Archduke
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Mr.X said:
Alene said:
I admit I don't understand.

Why would 9:8 score be unfair (1 point added to the team who won tiebreaker)? You said because unequal rounds was played, but I don't understand how that would be unfair. Draw rounds create that 1 point difference as well, only subrtacted instead being added.
Drawn rounds are played within the standard 16 rounds. Tie-breaker rounds are extra and many teams don't play them. Some teams use the home/away system often which is more likely to include tie-breakers. It's unfair to be counting rounds pass the initial 16 because it gives some teams more of a chance to increase their round differential, can be abused to the point of teams forcing draws in order to get a larger round differential than would be possible in the normal 16 rounds, and I don't see how we can reasonably measure teams by a round differential when some teams have played more rounds than others.
But I wasn't talking about increasing round differential, I was talking about giving one extra round won for winning tie-breaker. I don't see that one point differential being any reason for a team to force draw. You'd rather win 9:7 than 9:8, right? Also don't see that one round really messing up any statistics or being unfair to anyone.
 

Mr.X

Alene said:
Mr.X said:
Alene said:
I admit I don't understand.

Why would 9:8 score be unfair (1 point added to the team who won tiebreaker)? You said because unequal rounds was played, but I don't understand how that would be unfair. Draw rounds create that 1 point difference as well, only subrtacted instead being added.
Drawn rounds are played within the standard 16 rounds. Tie-breaker rounds are extra and many teams don't play them. Some teams use the home/away system often which is more likely to include tie-breakers. It's unfair to be counting rounds pass the initial 16 because it gives some teams more of a chance to increase their round differential, can be abused to the point of teams forcing draws in order to get a larger round differential than would be possible in the normal 16 rounds, and I don't see how we can reasonably measure teams by a round differential when some teams have played more rounds than others.
But I wasn't talking about increasing round differential, I was talking about giving one extra round won for winning tie-breaker. I don't see that one point differential being any reason for a team to force draw. You'd rather win 9:7 than 9:8, right? Also don't see that one round really messing up any statistics or being unfair to anyone.
Just as we didn't see counting tie-breaker rounds as messing anything up until it did. It wasn't even a thought.
I don't think you should be awarded round points outside of the original 16 rounds. In your case, a match that goes to a tie-breaker puts 17 points on the board where a normal match only puts 16. And if you applied that method to this particular situation, the result would have been a tied round difference between UK and Russia, which just means we have one more annoying hoop to jump through and one more technicality to find and exploit, and then everyone would be complaining about whatever method was used to make that decision. It's much simpler and more consistent have every match only account for 16 points total.
 

Dreaon

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
~Scar said:
Head-to-head is usually used in this case.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about.
It's really not unusual in tournaments, to look on the head-to-head result in certain circumstances.
And to prevent all this arguing, it should be part of the rules, how the ranking in the groupstage will be decided.
It also makes the life of the admins easier, if they have enough clear rules to hold on to.
Why would you want to make the decisions now and have the people discussing?
 

Mr.X

Dreaon said:
~Scar said:
Head-to-head is usually used in this case.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about.
It's really not unusual in tournaments, to look on the head-to-head result in certain circumstances.
And to prevent all this arguing, it should be part of the rules, how the ranking in the groupstage will be decided.
It also makes the life of the admins easier, if they have enough clear rules to hold on to.
Why would you want to make the decisions now and have the people discussing?
Obviously. We didn't purposely leave the rules vague so we could get everyone angry. We just didn't think of it and no one on the teams (who were all supposed to read the rules) brought it up.
 

Dreaon

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
You've made a point and people are silent now, it seems.
Maybe we all should take a closer look on the rules next time, before we actually start getting problems with them.

But until now, for many people such rules seemed to be fixed I guess. Like "I have to accept the rules but can't influence it". At least I possibly thought so.
So how about to start a public discussion about the rules next time, before the tournament begins? Or at least, ask some people to look over it / ask for opinions about the rules. Then, people will put more attention and effort in it.

Just an idea. For now, let's do the best with what we have.
Good luck to everyone!