[WNL6] Suggestions

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

PriNce17

Knight
Silent truth about Reunited
xgR9HNF.png

If u know what I mean
 
Could someone please clarify the calculation of the Buchholz-score for me.

Is it just the sum of the points your opponents had, have and will have? So, for example, will the Space Khergits get 3 points added to their BHS whenever GWP wins a game in the future (due to the SK-GWP match from Week 1)? Likewise will Wolfpack, iRaiven never get any points from further FTW-matches because there won't be any of those?
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
ModusTollens said:
Could someone please clarify the calculation of the Buchholz-score for me.

Is it just the sum of the points your opponents had, have and will have? So, for example, will the Space Khergits get 3 points added to their BHS whenever GWP wins a game in the future (due to the SK-GWP match from Week 1)?

Yes. It's supposed to add a slight balance if teams get matched up against teams that end up being successful, which will give them slightly easier matches later on.
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
You're right, I've changed the rules from being based on match results to being based on Fietta's garbage opinions. Thanks for the help.
 

Charlini

Grandmaster Knight
OurGloriousLeader said:
You're right, I've changed the rules from being based on match results to being based on Fietta's garbage opinions. Thanks for the help.

So a player of your tournament makes a critic on how the system works as he noticed an unbalanced match up and one of the main admins answers with disrespect, interesting.

Now into topic, Maybe you dislike Fietta's opinion, but he's got a point. You may have developed a way to make the match ups based on match results, but that doesn't mean that its a balanced method, correct or better than any other. Your aim was to avoid teams getting to play easier match ups like Agincourt had in the past. You achieved that, yet I don't really think that the current system is being really fair.

As a team leader, I don't see fair at all that GWB has to play so many hard match ups in a row while we had (with respect to all the teams we played), easier match ups on paper, not to mention the case of GP. If GWB win us in week 4, they're still gonna get potentially another hard opponent in week 5, same with the following weeks.

So yeah it's clear that with the system you fixed that teams dont get to pick who they play, but avoiding one problem you generated another balance-wise one. You allowed 6 teams to qualify now, but if you didnt open 2 more slots and kept 4, some teams would've probably get affected by the system and potentially dropped because of it, and lot of drama would've come up because other teams had literally 1 to 4 weeks of way easier matches.

You can't change this mid-competition and the system is gonna be respected even if its not the best one, but instead of disrespecting and ditching criticism over a player of your tournament perhaps it would be more nice to admit that it's not efficient, learn from the system and develop an improved one for a possible next edition. Would appreciate if any other admin can deliver an answer about this issue, so that we don't get to read answers that could come up from a salty 14 year old kid.
 

_Osiris_

Baron
WBNWWF&SVC
I think maybe Fietta would have gotten a better response if he offered a reasonable critique and not a sarcastic comment  :fruity: it takes two to tango
 

OurGloriousLeader

Grandmaster Knight
As Osiris says I'm open to questions and suggestions, I'm not open to throwaway comments that add nothing especially from people proven to rarely act in good faith (or intelligently).

I would argue that my system is indeed more balanced or "correct" than others. There are certain limiting factors in the scene that are unavoidable which means there will always be an element of randomness. A truly fair system would be a straight round robin, however there are too many teams for this to be workable (would be about 20+ weeks aka half as long as NC17). One way around that would be divisions, however the lack of permanence regarding teams makes the system, which otherwise worked well in WNL3, unfortunately unworkable. Looking to the future I'd be in favour of keeping a constant ladder system with divisions which might encourage teams to stick around rather than reforming every tournament, where teams could keep playing at their level rather than be forced to endure imbalanced match ups for half the time.

Anyway, with these issues being inescapable for now, that means for any current ladder we need to accept an element of RNG at the start. Week 1 and 2 were partially randomised, think of them as seeding weeks, with only Week 3 and the current week fully using the ladder system. Looking solely at them, I don't think it's particularly imbalanced - GP vs Aequalitas is a matchup worth having, Wolfpack defeated FTW in week 2 to some surprise so they deserved a go at a harder opponent. As results keep coming in you'll see increasingly balanced matchups as teams find their level. I actually would've been happier to see the ladder go on longer (the more it does, the fairer the results) but the KO system was implemented as a compromise since most of the community wants it.

I was dismissive to Fietta but the same goes for your more in-depth comment really - you're applying subjective opinion to team strength rather than being happy to go with results which will inevitably create harder or easier matchups for teams. The only other alternative would be an admin team just arbitrarily deciding "right, GP you've had it too easy, you're playing GWB!" and I think that would create far more drama...THEREFORE YOU'RE RIGHT, I'M ALL FOR IT!

edit: why do the forums keep bleeping out the shorted form for Aequalitas, is A.Q. some insult? I want to know
 

Waljaaa

Knight at Arms
Fietta said:
"Balance", GP 4 weeks without a super strong opponent...

In any league system, there will always be a team that gets lucky with its match ups. I think we've been quite lucky with our match ups because the system took our draw from week 1 into consideration, if we'd beaten Malta then we would've of faced a top team in week 3 and we wouldn't be placed in the top 6. Then GP would be facing a top tier team as opposed to us. I don't think GP having low-mid tier opponents so far should bother anyone yet, if they got a low-mid tier opponent for week 5, then it would be unfair but I don't think they will, unless we beat them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom