Dominion Strategy Forum
Archive => 2016 DominionStrategy Championships => Archive => 2012 => Topic started by: theory on December 02, 2012, 08:03:32 pm
-
This is the final entry list (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuZ91-6FOcw_dHp0Yy0tM2hSelp2TFZwYlpqb2k0UVE#gid=4) for the 2012 DominionStrategy.com Championships. The brackets can be found here (http://dominionstrategy.challonge.com/).
-
I'm curious as to why manzi, olneyce, and RisingJaguar are seeded so highly.
-
Presumably: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1406.0
Though I'm not sure why WW isn't also bumped up.
-
I'm curious as to why manzi, olneyce, and RisingJaguar are seeded so highly.
Presumably: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=1406.0
Though I'm not sure why WW isn't also bumped up.
The finalists + the winner of the third place match get a top seed. Those three, plus the highest ranked player otherwise, are sorted as the first four seeds.
-
I don't see myself in there, so I guess I didn't make the cut. :( oh well, good luck everyone!
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
-
Shoot, if I were two positions higher, I'd have been playing my housemate in the first round :(.
And I COULD have gotten a few positions higher if I really tried, as my uncertainty is still pretty high.
Oh well, maybe it's for the best.
-
I always find it really interesting, which players are the ones to fear at the top.
Like, I don't feel so afraid of facing like an olneyce or a Mic Qsenoch (who I did beat in round whatever of the Isodom Challenge). Similarly, I'm not totally out of my element with ednever and sharky (who I've played in real life) or Frisk and Eevee (who I interact with everyday in Forum Games). And I beat julie in like one game the other day, I don't know if I've ever played her before that.
On the other hand, jonts, WanderingWinder, and Stef routinely destroy me. No one scares me as much as Bonogi, though. I've beaten him maybe once? And I've played him a lot, a lot a lot.
Marin would beat me 100% of the time if Marin was trying, but sometimes I think Marin isn't playing to win, Marin is building a work of art.
-
I always find it really interesting, which players are the ones to fear at the top.
Like, I don't feel so afraid of facing like an olneyce or a Mic Qsenoch (who I did beat in round whatever of the Isodom Challenge). Similarly, I'm not totally out of my element with ednever and sharky (who I've played in real life) or Frisk and Eevee (who I interact with everyday in Forum Games). And I beat julie in like one game the other day, I don't know if I've ever played her before that.
On the other hand, jonts, WanderingWinder, and Stef routinely destroy me. No one scares me as much as Bonogi, though. I've beaten him maybe once? And I've played him a lot, a lot a lot.
Marin would beat me 100% of the time if Marin was trying, but sometimes I think Marin isn't playing to win, Marin is building a work of art.
And it's not even the opponent's level of skill. To stay consistently high, maybe you need to achieve a 80% winning percentage 100% of the time, but that doesn't scare me. It's the 100% winning percentage 80% of the time people, that are often much lower-ranked, that do.
-
I always find it really interesting, which players are the ones to fear at the top.
Like, I don't feel so afraid of facing like an olneyce or a Mic Qsenoch (who I did beat in round whatever of the Isodom Challenge). Similarly, I'm not totally out of my element with ednever and sharky (who I've played in real life) or Frisk and Eevee (who I interact with everyday in Forum Games). And I beat julie in like one game the other day, I don't know if I've ever played her before that.
On the other hand, jonts, WanderingWinder, and Stef routinely destroy me. No one scares me as much as Bonogi, though. I've beaten him maybe once? And I've played him a lot, a lot a lot.
Marin would beat me 100% of the time if Marin was trying, but sometimes I think Marin isn't playing to win, Marin is building a work of art.
And it's not even the opponent's level of skill. To stay consistently high, maybe you need to achieve a 80% winning percentage 100% of the time, but that doesn't scare me. It's the 100% winning percentage 80% of the time people, that are often much lower-ranked, that do.
Person #2 sounds like me. Do I scare anyone? Probably not. :D :P
-
I always find it really interesting, which players are the ones to fear at the top.
Like, I don't feel so afraid of facing like an olneyce or a Mic Qsenoch (who I did beat in round whatever of the Isodom Challenge). Similarly, I'm not totally out of my element with ednever and sharky (who I've played in real life) or Frisk and Eevee (who I interact with everyday in Forum Games). And I beat julie in like one game the other day, I don't know if I've ever played her before that.
On the other hand, jonts, WanderingWinder, and Stef routinely destroy me. No one scares me as much as Bonogi, though. I've beaten him maybe once? And I've played him a lot, a lot a lot.
Marin would beat me 100% of the time if Marin was trying, but sometimes I think Marin isn't playing to win, Marin is building a work of art.
And it's not even the opponent's level of skill. To stay consistently high, maybe you need to achieve a 80% winning percentage 100% of the time, but that doesn't scare me. It's the 100% winning percentage 80% of the time people, that are often much lower-ranked, that do.
Person #2 sounds like me. Do I scare anyone? Probably not. :D :P
Sounds like me too, except change the 100 to 70 and 80 to 30. :P
-
And it's not even the opponent's level of skill. To stay consistently high, maybe you need to achieve a 80% winning percentage 100% of the time, but that doesn't scare me. It's the 100% winning percentage 80% of the time people, that are often much lower-ranked, that do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M
-
If you have someone drop out today, I will gladly fill in!!! ;-)
-
If you have someone drop out today, I will gladly fill in!!! ;-)
Can't do that, sorry. Wouldn't be fair to others who want to fill in, or those that did sign up and got replaced by a high-ranking wildcard.
-
And it's not even the opponent's level of skill. To stay consistently high, maybe you need to achieve a 80% winning percentage 100% of the time, but that doesn't scare me. It's the 100% winning percentage 80% of the time people, that are often much lower-ranked, that do.
Person #2 sounds like me. Do I scare anyone? Probably not. :D :P
Sounds like me too, except change the 100 to 70 and 80 to 30. :P
Yeah, I'm not saying the numbers are accurate for me or anything. Just the concept. I mean, you usually blow me out of the water, HME.
-
I was seeded wrong. I think your grep matched another village_idiot variant.
Oh well, that's what I get for having an overused term as a name.
-
I was seeded wrong. I think your grep matched another village_idiot variant.
Oh well, that's what I get for having an overused term as a name.
when was your last game played on isotropic? i had to manually search yours because you weren't on the current leaderboard and must have missed the '_' in your name.
-
2012-09-16
Yeah, I didn't have time to play a game last week couple of months.
-
2012-09-16
Yeah, I didn't have time to play a game last week couple of months.
ok i see it now, sorry about that. i don't think there is anything we can do at this point though.
-
To defend GE, we did suggest everyone playing a game this week so they could appear on the leaderboard :)
-
I guess I should be the one complaining as KC-KC-Scout-Scout-Scout's opponent... ;)
(I also got unlucky by you using Saturday's instead of Sunday's leaderboard - I deliberately played lots of games on Saturday to regain previously lost levels for the tournament ranking and did in fact gain two which would have put me on spot 22 instead of 31... But you did announce to use "rankings on a date of our choice" (although I expected that to be Sunday), so that is OK of course. I guess you needed more than a day to process the data.)
But putting the underscore-oversight aside (that can happen of course), how did you (plan to) rank people who weren't on the current leaderboard, anyway? Just take their last entry? In that case they get a potentially big advantage out of not having played new games because they effectively froze their old level and weren't subject to level degradation by variance increase over time.
I would therefore strongly suggest next time you either rank by mean skill (my preference) or you absolutely require people to play at least one game in the current week and don't let them take part if they don't. Both solutions seem a lot fairer than rewarding people for not having played current games.
But anyway, let the games begin now! 8)
-
I guess I should be the one complaining as KC-KC-Scout-Scout-Scout's opponent... ;)
(I also got unlucky by you using Saturday's instead of Sunday's leaderboard - I deliberately played lots of games on Saturday to regain previously lost levels for the tournament ranking and did in fact gain two which would have put me on spot 22 instead of 31... But you did announce to use "rankings on a date of our choice" (although I expected that to be Sunday), so that is OK of course. I guess you needed more than a day to process the data.)
the rankings were pulled saturday afternoon. it took a good bit of effort to set this up and get things organized (even split between 3 people) and having the bulk of the rankings in place saturday freed up sunday to clean up any messes and get the brackets in place.
But putting the underscore-oversight aside (that can happen of course), how did you (plan to) rank people who weren't on the current leaderboard, anyway? Just take their last entry? In that case they get a potentially big advantage out of not having played new games because they effectively froze their old level and weren't subject to level degradation by variance increase over time.
i'm far from convinced, as this cuts both ways. using mean skill could easily help those players instead of leveling the field. if they haven't played in a while then they likely are not going to be at that same skill level they were 2 months ago, and they are getting a nice seeding boost. and of course a player can get to a nice level and simply camp there and play on an alt.
and remember that you stay on the leaderboard for a full week since your last game, a span in which you are likely to drop about two levels. this offers some compensation drop for those who haven't played in a while.
I would therefore strongly suggest next time you either rank by mean skill (my preference) or you absolutely require people to play at least one game in the current week and don't let them take part if they don't. Both solutions seem a lot fairer than rewarding people for not having played current games.
from the rules (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5686.msg144336#msg144336): Please be sure to play at least one game on Isotropic this week so that you can appear on the leaderboard.
we did tell people to do it. forcing them to do anything is difficult though, and i think is a potential source of too much drama. there are good cases to be made for both mean skill and level, but i don't think that the case for mean is strong enough to lead to a switch at this point.
using mean skill would function better in a tournament like isodom, where the players are typically A. a little higher ranked and B. playing more regularly. the DS.com championships have a much broader appeal, and you need to adjust accordingly.
-
I think you've done a great job setting this up. Regardless of how you do it there will always be complaints and opinions. Don't take it as personal criticism, because you absolutely don't deserve it.
-
I think you've done a great job setting this up. Regardless of how you do it there will always be complaints and opinions. Don't take it as personal criticism, because you absolutely don't deserve it.
Quoted for agreement. As far as I can tell, this tournament has been running with class thus far and has been great!
-
I think you've done a great job setting this up. Regardless of how you do it there will always be complaints and opinions. Don't take it as personal criticism, because you absolutely don't deserve it.
I agree and I missed the entry!
-
Regardless of how you do it there will always be complaints and opinions.
I wish to complain about the complaints!
But seriously, thank you guys for setting this up. I know what it's like to run a tournament like this!
-
I think you've done a great job setting this up. Regardless of how you do it there will always be complaints and opinions. Don't take it as personal criticism, because you absolutely don't deserve it.
Absolutely!
I already said something similar in the rules questions thread, but let me reaffirm that nothing I wrote about this tournament is supposed to badmouth the wonderful efforts you guys have put into it. Kudos and thanks for that! :D
However, I think that it is a good thing to ask questions about things which appear unclear and discuss the pros and cons of possible changes/improvements. That can be helpful for the next time and has nothing to do with personal criticism!
-
So with that being said a quick reply to greatexpectations' post:
we did tell people to do it. forcing them to do anything is difficult though, and i think is a potential source of too much drama.
I agree there are arguments against using mean skill (which have to be weighed). But in any case, that is no argument against my alternative proposal. To me it seems pretty obvious that it isn't fair to first tell people to play at least one game in the rules and then let them get away with it if they didn't do it. Not fair because it gives them a potentially large level advantage to not play a single game in cases where they hadn't played for several weeks or even months (variance stays low). So those that have listened to your call for at least one recent game in the rules are at a disadvantage compared to that.
Considering that there were many more people who would have liked to play, in my opinion, it would have been better to announce a little clearer that playing at least one game until Friday evening is a necessary prerequisite to play the tournament and then enforce that.
Alternatively, the variance increase since the last leaderboard listing could have been calculated separately.
Again, this is just a proposal for a (hopefully coming) next time and is not supposed to imply anything for this tournament.
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
DG and dghunter79 being #38 and #39 caught my eye.
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
I am definitely not Kyrion, which I assume is a charged Kyr.
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
DG and dghunter79 being #38 and #39 caught my eye.
Clearly dghunter is hunting DG, and he's managed to sneak up right behind him...
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
I am definitely not Kyrion, which I assume is a charged Kyr.
Not too many chemists around, it seems.. ;-)
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
DG and dghunter79 being #38 and #39 caught my eye.
Clearly dghunter is hunting DG, and he's managed to sneak up right behind him...
He might be hunting -dg- instead, in which case DG did him a favor (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=5690.msg145007#msg145007).
-
Are Kyrion (#114) Kirian (#119) the same person or is it just a mad coincidence that two players with such similar names are so similarly ranked?
I am definitely not Kyrion, which I assume is a charged Kyr.
Not too many chemists around, it seems.. ;-)
Better chemists jokes in other threads.
-
This may be, but still I gotta praise every tiny bit among all these math guys posting around.
-
This may be, but still I gotta praise every tiny bit among all these math guys posting around.
Good point. I'll try to remember to do the same. You and me and Kuildeous and Kirian, are there other chemists?
-
blackb, but he's not an extremely active poster. Don't know of anyone else.
-
Updated the spreadsheet's Level Statistics and Geographical Statistics. The average level has jumped by 7 levels as only one < 10 level player (out of an initial 34) remained after Round 1. (He sadly subsequently lost in Round 2.) Meanwhile, every region performs almost exactly as expected, further confirming the hypothesis that Dominion skill has no relation whatsoever to nationality.
-
Added a sheet for stats on # of games played. A high # of games played was no guarantee of safety, but those that played less than 1000 games took a heavy blow.
-
Updated the spreadsheet's Level Statistics and Geographical Statistics. The average level has jumped by 7 levels as only one < 10 level player (out of an initial 34) remained after Round 1. (He sadly subsequently lost in Round 2.) Meanwhile, every region performs almost exactly as expected, further confirming the hypothesis that Dominion skill has no relation whatsoever to nationality.
Handedness! You need to track handedness! Us lefties will dominate, I guarantee.
-
Updated the spreadsheet's Level Statistics and Geographical Statistics. The average level has jumped by 7 levels as only one < 10 level player (out of an initial 34) remained after Round 1. (He sadly subsequently lost in Round 2.) Meanwhile, every region performs almost exactly as expected, further confirming the hypothesis that Dominion skill has no relation whatsoever to nationality.
Handedness! You need to track handedness! Us lefties will dominate, I guarantee.
This would be very interesting. I'll take down a lefty anytime I can.
-
Just looking over the spreadsheet, it looks like level corresponds pretty well with likelihood of advancing in the tournament.