Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AdamH]

I think nobody is wrong.

I think you're wrong.

What now?

You're not wrong either.

Maybe you aren't right. I dunno. Can't we all just hug it out?

[shraeye]

/in for hugs

[EgorK]

I think with up to 98 we would be better of with 7 player groups. It doesn't really matter wether there is one such group or all

[Monsieur X]

Stef i saw you created a topic for results, and you think to create an other one to put current leaderboards of all groups
I have an idea. Why not asking one player in each group to post a message on top of his group's topic dicussion with results and current leaderboard?
Other group players would verify it and it would take less time for you?

[2.71828.....]

I never understood the third tie-break until I actually looked and figured out what it was to see why Stef beat me this season.  I also found it very vaguely worded in the rules, which is probably why I never really understood it.  I think that it would be beneficial to clarify this in the rules. 

As is, the rules state:

II. Ordering
1. The number of games you won; a tie counts as half a win.
    --> We do not count matchpoints
2. Number of games won counting only games between the players that are now tied
3. for each game you won, add the total score of that opponent
4. Coin flip

Since results are posted under "standings" I propose that this bullet is changed to something like this:

II.  Standings
1. Points are awarded for each game won.  1 point for a win; 0.5 points for a tie.
    a. Points may be awarded for incomplete games based on the circumstances of that game.  The specific ruling for this can be found here.
    b. No points are awarded for winning a match. 
2. At the end of the season, if players are tied, the following tiebreaks will be used
    a. Number of games won counting only games between the players that are now tied
    b. Season Point Value^TM
        1. For each opponent, multiply the number of points earned against that opponent by that opponent's total points.  Your season point value is the sum of your score against each player.
    c. Coin flip

*I just randomly created the term "Season Point Value" because it seemed to fit best with what I understand the third tie-break to be.  It can obviously be changed.  (if you even adopt this proposed clarification to the rules.)

[assemble_me]

I'd rather call the 2nd tie breaker something like "weighted opponent's score" (because that's actually what it is ).
So yeah, I think that term is rather self-explaining.

[mpsprs]

I think that it would be beneficial to clarify this in the rules. 

Thanks for this.  As it happens, we (moderators of the league) are in the process of trying to clarify the rules, especially as it pertains to helping new players.  So if you see anything else that is confusing, we'd love to hear about it (especially if you also have suggestions for a more clear wording!).

[mith]

Another thing that might be worth revisiting is tiebreak procedures for more than two players. It's common (though probably not universal) in sports leagues to determine the next team in the standings and then reset to the beginning of the tiebreak procedure with the remaining teams. For example, in the hypothetical Season 8 standings:

If he wins exactly 4 games ...

A (100%)

rank	name	average	points	#played	2nd	3rd	iso	season9?
1.	Mic Qsenoch	4.0	20	5	0.0	279.5	52.6	Yes
2.	SheCantSayNo	2.9	14.5	5	0.0	219.5	47.4	?
3.	2.71828.....	2.8	14	5	7.0	195.5	38.9	?
4.	Stef	2.8	14	5	6.0	209.5	54.4	?
5.	dudeabides	2.8	14	5	5.0	213.0	34.2	?
6.	Tao Chen	2.7	13.5	5	0.0	202.5	41.8	?

Mic Qsenoch - SheCantSayNo: 3 - 3
Mic Qsenoch - 2.71828.....: 6 - 0
Mic Qsenoch - Stef: 4 - 2
Mic Qsenoch - dudeabides: 3 - 3
Mic Qsenoch - Tao Chen: 4 - 2
SheCantSayNo - 2.71828.....: 3 - 3
SheCantSayNo - Stef: 1.5 - 4.5
SheCantSayNo - dudeabides: 4 - 2
SheCantSayNo - Tao Chen: 3 - 3
2.71828..... - Stef: 3 - 3
2.71828..... - dudeabides: 4 - 2
2.71828..... - Tao Chen: 4 - 2
Stef - dudeabides: 3 - 3
Stef - Tao Chen: 1.5 - 4.5
dudeabides - Tao Chen: 4 - 2

... then dudeabides and Tao Chen demote.

e wins the first tiebreaker over both Stef and dudeabides. As the rules are currently stated (and as illustrated in the above table), Stef also wins the first tiebreaker over dudeabides, because the results vs. e are still included. However, e is no longer a part of the tie, so arguably his results against the two should not have any more bearing on the result than their matches with the other players. If we restart the tiebreak considering just Stef and dudeabides, they were 3-3 head-to-head, so we go to the second tiebreaker, which dudeabides wins (by virtue of the extra win against Mic Qsenoch). This seems to be more in the spirit of the tiebreaker rules, though admittedly it is a bit trickier to process.

[-Stef-]

e wins the first tiebreaker over both Stef and dudeabides. As the rules are currently stated (and as illustrated in the above table), Stef also wins the first tiebreaker over dudeabides, because the results vs. e are still included. However, e is no longer a part of the tie, so arguably his results against the two should not have any more bearing on the result than their matches with the other players. If we restart the tiebreak considering just Stef and dudeabides, they were 3-3 head-to-head, so we go to the second tiebreaker, which dudeabides wins (by virtue of the extra win against Mic Qsenoch). This seems to be more in the spirit of the tiebreaker rules, though admittedly it is a bit trickier to process.

I'm actually kind of happy with this rule. It's relatively simple given that it covers all cases (even the freaky 5-way ties).
And on top of that it hasn't been relevant even once yet (only in hypothetical standings), so I'm not very inclined to change this rule.

[EgorK]

I think first tb should be recalculated only if after first iteration there is still tie. Otherwise why not conclude in the example provided that dudeabides is clearly 5th and then Stef wins over e