Warband Revival League

8v8 ladder type tournament to revive the warband native competitive scene #warbandRL

Quick Overview

Category
Warband
Language
English (US)
Total members
116
Total events
0
Total discussions
42

[WRL] General Discussion

Users who are viewing this thread

Ascarion

Knight at Arms
Old Guard
Logo.png


General Discussion




Post your thoughts about the WRL here, discuss whatever you want regarding the tournament.

If you have any suggestions please use the suggestion thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a general remark, I suspect this isn't the doing of the tournament admins but I find it very weird that this subboard is in groups, and can't be found when just going through the multiplayer forums. Or atleast I didn't. Makes the tournament as a whole alot less visible, which is a shame.
 
Just a general remark, I suspect this isn't the doing of the tournament admins but I find it very weird that this subboard is in groups, and can't be found when just going through the multiplayer forums. Or atleast I didn't. Makes the tournament as a whole alot less visible, which is a shame.

I was also thinking about it a few days ago. Don't know why they did that.
 
I was also thinking about it a few days ago. Don't know why they did that.
Not up to us sadly. But Callum won't even answer my DMs; we'd prefer having a subboard, but Taleworlds was very clear for the last 6v6 tournament that they are not doing that anymore. They are not providing us with any other kind of assistance either.
 
It's very nice that people still find the willingness to continue organizing competitions on native and even nicer to see there still continues to be a good response from the community, especially in the lower divisions.

Even though I don't plan on being involved at all, I will still try to check the board from time to time to follow the course of the event. Good luck with the hosting!
 
Couple of questions:

A) How have you worked out the match fixtures? From the rules:

(2) Teams are sorted firstly by total points, secondly by their Buchholz score, thirdly by round difference, and lastly by rounds won.
(3) The Buchholz score is a running tally of each team's previous opponents' points from match wins, draws and losses.
(4) Teams will be automatically matched to opponents based on the following criteria: Done by dividing the group of players, ordered from strongest to weakest, into two strength ordered sets, one containing the stronger players of the group, the other containing the weaker players of the group. The strongest player of the stronger set is paired with the strongest player of the weaker set. The next strongest player of the stronger set is paired with the next strongest player of the weaker set, till all players have been paired or there is only one player unpaired.

From a quick tally of the matches in Div A I get the following:

4eAAtVZ.png


Going by the rules I read this to therefore be 2 groups as: Oida, R, AE, and Malta, IR, ESP, which leads to:

OIDA vs Malta
R vs IR
AE vs ESP

Am I reading it wrong? I see in the division table from week 1 you have the round difference as the BHS score also.

B) The rule:
(5) Teams that have faced each other previously will not have a rematch, instead the next closest opponent will be selected.

Does this mean there will never be a rematch e.g. Div A is essentially round robin, or just not a rematch of the week previously e.g. AE could play R again in the league stage?
 
As Aeronwen has mentioned already, the rules are not 100% accurate, I have to apologize for the mistake. In Division A we indeed aim for round-robin. For the fixtures, I have made another mistake. It should have been indeed like you have shown and as the rules have stated (at least for this week). But I am assuming that most of the teams did already the training scheduling for this week and maybe even for the official. Therefore it will stay like it is since everyone gets to face everyone anyway.

Thanks for the suggestion, we will have a quick internal talk about it and might adjust the rules for Divison A then.
 
It would make more sense to sort teams by Points>Head to head record>Round difference when it comes to deciding the top 4, assuming it is actually round robin.

as its a RR there will be only one H-to-H so if that is put before round difference having round difference would be redundant.

The question is whther we think that H-to-H outweighs the RD over the whole round robin. I think it is more ususal to have H-to-H as the final decider after RD.
 
The problem with RD in this situation is that it can distort league position. If a team knows it can no longer qualify for the KO stage or fall apart then the matches it plays later may well be much easier for their opponent than in their first week or two. This will lead to teams potentially having "harder" matches against lower teams than their opponents and walkovers that potentially happen later in the season will inflate the RD of the victor. RD is fine but in my opinion head-to-head is probably preferable with the small number of teams as it means teams cannot deny that their final sorting was in their own hands.
 
As Aeronwen has mentioned already, the rules are not 100% accurate, I have to apologize for the mistake. In Division A we indeed aim for round-robin. For the fixtures, I have made another mistake. It should have been indeed like you have shown and as the rules have stated (at least for this week). But I am assuming that most of the teams did already the training scheduling for this week and maybe even for the official. Therefore it will stay like it is since everyone gets to face everyone anyway.
? stupidest thing I read all day
 
The problem with RD in this situation is that it can distort league position. If a team knows it can no longer qualify for the KO stage or fall apart then the matches it plays later may well be much easier for their opponent than in their first week or two. This will lead to teams potentially having "harder" matches against lower teams than their opponents and walkovers that potentially happen later in the season will inflate the RD of the victor. RD is fine but in my opinion head-to-head is probably preferable with the small number of teams as it means teams cannot deny that their final sorting was in their own hands.
makes sense
 
Have checked Div B and it's the same issue - obviously you have gone by RD and not BHS as per the rules, which may have been your intention all the time but not edited in the rules i guess.

This is what Div B should be:

VWuE3nR.png


Considering this does affect Div B since they won't be able to round robin, I would suggest it needs to be redone. I'm assuming Div C will also be the same and it affects them even more due to more teams. As such seems fairest to redo it for all Divs now and continue with this.

It's only Tuesday, if there was ever a time to cancel and redo it would be now.

Then again I'm going to guess Week 2 was also done wrong so maybe it doesn't matter lol.
 
round robin for div A, so in Div A BS is totally irrelevant (as each team played all the others). The discussion about RD abd H-to-H was for div A only.

not RR for divs B & C, so your previous testing of BS is relevant there,

ATM div A can resolve as a RR and I have posted that table on the admin forum. Bullez has said he has that organised.

my previous post was answering OGL on divs B & C which have more teams and so are not RR for the 5 weeks. The regular system of sorting (as per the rules) applies. I would have said we did have H-to-H as teh final sorting category just because all teh others are theoreticall possibly equal for any 2 teams and you need a definate decider but ye it wasn't there.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom