Forum
Why Does GC Rule Still Exist?
Created 1st February 2015 @ 17:28
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 2
Quoted from ducky
[…]
Determining who’s higher on the table at the end of the season is not an issue,we can do that with the current point system we have using tiebrakers/head-to-head/round difference/sonneborn-berger-score
The matter at hand is to generate as accurate and balanced matchups as possible for the teams as early as the very start of the next week.
To do that effectively we need a clear winner at the end of the previous week.
Tied matches resulting in equal points for both teams won't cut it.
Someone HAS to win,whether it's a 3-0 map win or a 2-1 GC win.
As far as I know swiss system matches weak teams against strong teams in the first few matches. So I dont really think trying to get fair matchups is what you are supposed to do as it is hard to do and it ruins the nature of swiss tournament system.
That is what the average system I suggested comes in. In chess they matchup players according to their score and their elo’s. Since we dont have elo’s our only chance of getting a natural matchup is to have some sort of an average system going on. Either the one I suggested or round differences.
Or we could have none and only look at points when matching up.
I can also see where you’re coming from with “someone has to win” but that means we have to remove the gc point difference
Accelerated Swiss is strong v strong and weak v weak, because it gives information faster (strong beating weak tells you nothing).
Quoted from Max
[…]
As far as I know swiss system matches weak teams against strong teams in the first few matches. So I dont really think trying to get fair matchups is what you are supposed to do as it is hard to do and it ruins the nature of swiss tournament system.
We are using the accelerated pairing system which matches strong with strong and weak with weak in the first two weeks.
Quoted from Permzilla
[…]
We are using the accelerated pairing system which matches strong with strong and weak with weak in the first two weeks.
Wait that means a strong team might have 0 points while a weak team might have 2 points after 2 weeks
Then what happens? The strong team gets matched up with other weak 0 point teams and the “no weak vs strong” thing you are trying to get away from is actually coming back.
However if that is the risk you wanna take then ofc feel free to. However how do you think you will exactly determine who is weak and who is strong?
Quoted from Max
[…]
Wait that means a strong team might have 0 points while a weak team might have 2 points after 2 weeks
Then what happens? The strong team gets matched up with other weak 0 point teams and the “no weak vs strong” thing you are trying to get away from is actually coming back.
However if that is the risk you wanna take then ofc feel free to. However how do you think you will exactly determine who is weak and who is strong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament#Accelerated_pairings
We are seeding them ourselves, based on history/screenshots etc. Just like we would seed last season.
After hashing it out with Gentleman Jon on some previous thread (Swiss System one?) I think the Golden Cap points distribution is actually pretty fair.
It allows evenly matched teams to be recognised, but still discriminates between a winner and loser.
I originally wanted to see 3 points for a GC win and 0 for a GC loss, but I came to realise that isn’t an accurate representation of the ability of the teams.
The only troubling thing is that there are no draw/golden cap conditions in our current KOTH rules but that is something we could attempt to address.
A 30 minute timelimit probably won’t work because the rounds take 3-6 minutes to play and there would be the potential for a lot of dead time?
Perhaps mp_maxrounds 6 and mp_winlimit 4:
First team to 4 rounds wins, but if neither team has reached the winlimit it after 6 rounds are played then it is a draw/golden cap to be played.
Edit: Just realised I stole the CS rules :D
Last edited by Admirable,
Add A Reply Pages: « Previous 1 2
content rss