Forums

Search
Forums » T2R Competitive Play - English » NC 2012 : Rules and discussion
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
SY/\/ \/\/ill
Senior Member
Pumpkin Master

Posts: 386
Registered:
June 2010
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Tue, 11 December 2012 03:18
[quote title=Sysyphus wrote on Sun, 09 December 2012 16:56]
Community decided:



1. Should we fix a maximum number of players per team ?

A. YES : 5 votes

B. NO : 13 votes


2. Should we keep the ELO score ELO-related as a basis for the seeding of the teams in Round Robin ?

C. YES : 11 votes

D. NO : 7 votes


3. Should we modify the format of KO round and/or Round Robin ?
(i.e : keep the same format in RR and KO)

E. YES : 11 votes

F. NO : 7 votes



1) ok fine... If TuS have twelve next year let SNS have 12 and be trans-nat. It's pathetic! We weren't even allowed 2 subs and I work 7 days/week.

2) not that bothered. It's totally inaccurate, but if that's what people want... All vote yes on something that doesn't really work! Wooo! Why not do something like I suggested - well performing teams from this year are highly seeded next year. SNS won't be highly seeded on ELO next year either... People will still moan about uneven groups... Won't stop that!

3) im sorry but at some point someone has to win a game. Who enjoys drawing?! Really boring result. It's a tournament! Maybe in group stages (which I still hate) like football round robin, but in knockouts it's getting tedious.
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2665
Registered:
December 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Tue, 11 December 2012 04:27
Quote:


1) ok fine... If TuS have twelve next year let SNS have 12 and be trans-nat. It's pathetic! We weren't even allowed 2 subs and I work 7 days/week.

2) not that bothered. It's totally inaccurate, but if that's what people want... All vote yes on something that doesn't really work! Wooo! Why not do something like I suggested - well performing teams from this year are highly seeded next year. SNS won't be highly seeded on ELO next year either... People will still moan about uneven groups... Won't stop that!

3) im sorry but at some point someone has to win a game. Who enjoys drawing?! Really boring result. It's a tournament! Maybe in group stages (which I still hate) like football round robin, but in knockouts it's getting tedious.




Well several things :

1) I wish SNS had participated to the vote to express their opinion.

2) I do agree about the number of players.

We asked SNS to make some (huge) efforts to build their own team : (and I thank them for accepting the challenge, was worth it it seems) I wish CAT and TuS would make the same efforts to build a second team next year.
Otherwise, promoting 4-player teams and national teams over TNTs doesn't make sense imo.

The vote doesn't make the effort necessary. If some players want to play with 10 players, why not but then think of what's offered below in 3).

3) About ELO, same as Will.

I hope teams will be consistent in their vote :

*you want more players to play in your team ? broaden the ELO to the whole team, whether there are 5, 6 or 10 players !

*you want to keep 4 best players' ELO average ? vote should have gone to "fix a max number of players".


4) I would understand that not everybody has time to read the forum, but I hope that Board representatives are gathering information enough to vote in full knowledge...

I don't think voting more precisely on those matters (format, definition of the ELO) right now would be good if players are not really aware of the pros and cons.


I do understand some teams are defending their own interests, but the interest of the event should weigh in our votes too. (sounds like European Union here).




[Updated on: Tue, 11 December 2012 04:34]

      
SY/\/ \/\/ill
Senior Member
Pumpkin Master

Posts: 386
Registered:
June 2010
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Tue, 11 December 2012 14:24
I would have, however I assumed Robin had contacted you!
I think you made my point better than me about the team sizes and huge teams being against what the rule changes were meant for...

No mention of SNS...
Sysyphus wrote on Sat, 08 December 2012 18:58

Ok guys, 4 hours left to vote.

Still waiting for the vote of :

CAT-suburu
UEG Volleytom
SMP JenAck
Elric-Sancerre (how surprising!)
SOS Patterson

Maskaride-Vouvray
(I have a backup vote by pm from Knock, in case Maskaride doesnt show up on time)




Edit: also, hate to pick at your English as it is way better than my French, but question 3 is completely unclear what you are voting for as the text in brackets is opposite to the question (if that makes sense)

[Updated on: Tue, 11 December 2012 14:27]

      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Tue, 11 December 2012 17:01
SNS Will-Skyfall wrote on Tue, 11 December 2012 03:18



1) ok fine... If TuS have twelve next year let SNS have 12 and be trans-nat. It's pathetic! We weren't even allowed 2 subs and I work 7 days/week.

2) not that bothered. It's totally inaccurate, but if that's what people want... All vote yes on something that doesn't really work! Wooo! Why not do something like I suggested - well performing teams from this year are highly seeded next year. SNS won't be highly seeded on ELO next year either... People will still moan about uneven groups... Won't stop that!

3) im sorry but at some point someone has to win a game. Who enjoys drawing?! Really boring result. It's a tournament! Maybe in group stages (which I still hate) like football round robin, but in knockouts it's getting tedious.



And Will scoffs the community and the majority vote yet again.

Personally, I would like to see the following vote:

Should we allow Trans-National teams in the Nation's cup:
A. Yes , the more the merrier, everyone should be allowed to play
B. Yes, but only regional alliances (like Scandinavia, Can-US, Asia, Italy-Swiss), as approved by the TD
C. No, it's a Nation's Cup after all, and most of the stupid discussions seem to revolve around people's feeling of entitlement to do whatever they want in forming a TNT.




      
SY/\/ \/\/ill
Senior Member
Pumpkin Master

Posts: 386
Registered:
June 2010
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Wed, 12 December 2012 11:56
Yes Sven, I'll happily say when something works like smaller teams but I won't be quiet if it doesn't.

1. Do you enjoy drawing a match? Is that the future you want? If you draw your own 6 group games, draw your QF and SF match then your team gets knocked out will you have had an enjoyable tournament?!?!
2. Ignore your TD status for a minute, we have five players, I work 7, yes 7 days/week and you wouldn't let us have a 6th player. Ok fine, we have just about coped (had to play one match at 4am!). Yet a team with 12 can't be FORCED to split into two teams larger than ours. Im sorry but that is just madness that there is no cap. Rule change for smaller teams was to allow more 1-nation entries. Why should we make such an effort if others don't?Perhaps a vote on a player cap should have included a figure ie 6/7 so people weren't worried they would be stupidly short of players like us.
3. The last question is so unclear the result could be questionable. Wording suggests yes means 2 different things.
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Wed, 12 December 2012 13:15
SNS Will-Skyfall wrote on Wed, 12 December 2012 11:56

Yes Sven, I'll happily say when something works like smaller teams but I won't be quiet if it doesn't.

1. Do you enjoy drawing a match? Is that the future you want? If you draw your own 6 group games, draw your QF and SF match then your team gets knocked out will you have had an enjoyable tournament?!?!
2. Ignore your TD status for a minute, we have five players, I work 7, yes 7 days/week and you wouldn't let us have a 6th player. Ok fine, we have just about coped (had to play one match at 4am!). Yet a team with 12 can't be FORCED to split into two teams larger than ours. Im sorry but that is just madness that there is no cap. Rule change for smaller teams was to allow more 1-nation entries. Why should we make such an effort if others don't?Perhaps a vote on a player cap should have included a figure ie 6/7 so people weren't worried they would be stupidly short of players like us.
3. The last question is so unclear the result could be questionable. Wording suggests yes means 2 different things.



0. You certainly have a hard time keeping quiet, I agree.
1. Personally, I don't enjoy it. Moreover I'd rather play a best of 19 and have a limit on the amount of time spent on each move, but if the majority want draws in the RR stage or we play best of 5 and best of 7 and my opps are allowed to bore me to death, I'm ok with that. Nl need to go on and on about it.
2. Who says you coundn't add 1 or 2 players and form an TNT ? A pure UK team was certainly preferred (by UK players as well I hope), but if after weeks of seraching you came to the conclusion in the stage where TNT's could be formed, that you need an extra player, I don't think that would have been a problem. YOUR problem is that you start shouting from the start about how things should be, taking no time to read the rules and calmly have some lobby and PM discussions. Finland had 4 or 5 players, same situation, they formed a TNT. The difference being that Val did so in a very constructive manner.
2b. I agree, but if there's a clear majority for no cap, that's fine, we'll live. It's certainly not "pathetic", as you say.
3. If it's unclear (and I agree it is, but I'm not voting, nor do I care very much), why don't you send a PM to Sysyphus, ask him in the lobby or whatever. All this "I can't be bothered, I don't have time, can someone explain everything to me" is annoying.

As for scheduling, you could have planned some matches in earlier weeks, knowing beforehand you might have had problems.

[Updated on: Wed, 12 December 2012 13:24]

      
ACP Miguel
Senior Member
T2R Swiss Map Championship 2011 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 591
Registered:
October 2006
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Wed, 12 December 2012 13:16
i really enjoy users saying we should vote.

then when users vote and their choice was not eligible, then we just assume that users didnt knew what they were voting, or were lazy, or that are stupid.

then we ask for a re-vote.

thats democracy @ his best

let's go for another ELO vote untill ELO is not wanted.

Smile
      
SYN Stephan1972
Senior Member

Posts: 307
Registered:
December 2006
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Thu, 13 December 2012 00:50
for what its worth:

1. I like the rule changes - draws are great, ELO no problem, and small or large teams ok in principle (whatever floats people's boats

but

2. I have been a very part time substitute so really SNS was a 4.5 player team at best. So thanks to myteam mates for carrying me so far! I think comments along the lines of "UK has 60 million people, surely they can find a few more players" were beyond a joke (especially, and I will say it again, as not a single additional player would be allowed to play many of the NC players any other time of year in 1600+ or even 1500+ etc games). Simply an observation.

3. Finally, Truck you give three options in your suggested TNT vote, but you are missing a fourth. "The ticket to ride nation's cup is a world championship to decide to the strongest national TEAM. Each country selects its strongest team and this team is entered into the competition" After all that is how every single international team competition (with the exception of winter olympics bob sleighing?) is run. I would vote against this option but surely it should be included? Very Happy



[Updated on: Thu, 13 December 2012 00:51]

      
GSV3
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 703
Registered:
May 2009
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Thu, 13 December 2012 13:28
I do understand the sign-in procedure for NC (now, wasn't the case a few months ago - apologies again), but I don't appreciate it.
Personnaly, I would like to see some changes :
1. When sign-in starts, EVERY player is invited to register his participation in a unique threat with name, ID, country and if he wants to be captain or not.
2. Then, all players are grouped by country and they can decide to join their preferred captain (team). Of course, the potential cap may refuse to put the player in his team: already enough players (e.g. TuS) or "I don't want to play with you" (e.g. Peter with SOS).
3. Remaining players are
- players from small countries (not enough players for a team)
- players rejected by ALL captains from their country
They are allowed to join an existing team (created in phase 2) or to create a new one (national or TNT).

The final result should be more or less the same as now, but at least, it should be clear for everyone.

[Updated on: Thu, 13 December 2012 13:32]

      
SYN Stephan1972
Senior Member

Posts: 307
Registered:
December 2006
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Thu, 13 December 2012 13:44
Just one more point on TNTs - clearly over the years this has caused lots of discussion and sometimes bad feeling.

What annoys me a bit is that there is sometimes a sense towards smaller nations of "we are doing you a favour by letting you play with the 'proper' teams".

Yes, the flexibility towards smaller nations is much appreciated, e.g. rule changes to make teams smaller, TNTs, etc.

BUT at the same time there is equal flexibility by allowing large nations to enter multiple teams.

This is equally outside the spirit of a true world cup as allowing TNTs.

So frankly, we should recognise that this competition is about inclusivity and having fun (and SNS winning of course Twisted Evil). This is why multiple teams AND TNTs are both important and if and when we have truckertellers vote (ideally with my fourth option), then I will be voting for the status quo!
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Thu, 13 December 2012 14:55
SNS Stephan1972-Octopussy wrote on Thu, 13 December 2012 13:44

BUT at the same time there is equal flexibility by allowing large nations to enter multiple teams.

This is equally outside the spirit of a true world cup as allowing TNTs.


I would think the best example is bridge. As far as I know the world championships have 4 players on one team and countries can have more than 1 team in the championship (maybe 3, maybe more, I don't know, but certainly more than 1). The bridge world championships do not have TNT as far as I know. So, personally I'm in the "we are doing you a favour by letting you play with the 'proper' teams" camp. If SOS would not have enough players, I would not play for a TNT.
      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Thu, 13 December 2012 15:28
@Bridge:

The "normal" European and World Championships and the Olympics are restricted to only 1 team per nation (6 player max per team, 4 min needed).
In addition there are "Open Championships" where more then 1 team per nation and transnational teams are allowed.

[Updated on: Thu, 13 December 2012 15:29]

      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Truck makes misplaced comparisons Thu, 13 December 2012 15:44
Uhoh, seems I know nothing and should shut up about bridge.

There's a US 1 and a US 2 in the bermuda bowl, but that seems to be a quirky thing.

[Updated on: Thu, 13 December 2012 15:53]

      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:NC 2012 : Truck makes misplaced comparisons Thu, 13 December 2012 16:24
Well, seems you know more than I thought and I should be more specific Wink

There's indeed one exception.
For the Bermuda Bowl (that's the name for the World Championship in the "open" category, for the ladies it's called Venice Cup) you qualify in your zonal championship.
In the Europe zone you have max 1 team per nation at the European Championships, best 6 qualify, so max 1 team per nation in the Bermuda Bowl, too.
The North American zone has the problem, that they don't have so many nations (Can, USA and Mexico) so they have a special allowance for 2 USA teams in a total quota of 3.

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2665
Registered:
December 2007
Thread needs to be clearer Fri, 14 December 2012 02:00
MiguelMarques wrote on Wed, 12 December 2012 05:16


then when users vote and their choice was not eligible, then we just assume that users didnt knew what they were voting, or were lazy, or that are stupid.



Well, when I hear here and there, that "V and W" didn't understand the draft concept but still voted against it and now thinks that it is good idea, that "X,Y, Z" liked this idea but Board Rep didn't vote, I just think that the way discussions are made (pretty confusing in a thread) doesn't help BR to make the right choices if they are only reading the vote itself and not the discussions.

We could improve the whole process.
Quote:


Democracy...



Well democracy is a compromise between personal interest and community interest. And here we are part of a community.

If all BR were part of the discussions, and would help building "rules" or comment on what NC should look like, then I would call it democracy in a community. If they do not read the discussions and vote in the name of personal/team interest... Less a democracy in a community in my opinion.

I think that anybody who posts in the rules discussion should offer a wording along with their proposal, or could just add an observation to defend/amend their/one's proposal. And that the discussion doesn't revolve only around thrown ideas that add confusion to the debate, but mainly on the rules and on the vote that should happen later on.
A thread by topic. Each thread would aim at discussing an issue during the past NC (pointed in the rules discussion thread) and at finding a clear wording for a vote.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 December 2012 02:04]

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2665
Registered:
December 2007
Wordings Fri, 14 December 2012 02:52
On that regard, Truck and Stephan's exchange is good. Drake, dea and Pegaso are usually posting with clear wordings and proposals.
Regarding NC 2012, considering the last vote and the "rules discussion thread", I still think a couple threads have to be opened.
Since I'm not the best at doing the wordings (I'm not the most precise person), any amendment to the proposals below or any other idea is most welcome.

1. Seeding :
There's no question about ELO as a reference anymore.
I think it was clear 2p USA ELO should still be used : I didn't read anyone promoting something other than 2p+USA ELO.

Though, this year's groupping is still questionned in the rules discussion thread :
22: (1,6,7,12,13,18,19), (2,5,8,11,14,17,20) and (3,4,9,10,15,16,21,22),

Truck offered to use the following model :
(1,4,7,10,13,16,19,22), (2,5,8,11,14,17,20), (3,6,9,12,15,18,21)

Now that we have an illimited number of players/team:Is 13.2 Team's rank is decided by the sum of ratings of best 4 players still ok ?

I would suggest 13.2 Team's rank is decided by the average of ratings of all the players in a team to reflect the real strength of a team in RR (provided all the players participate in the RR).

2. Format of a clash in Round Robin.
Currently we have :
RR :Each match consists of 6 games.
KO : 4 bo7 + 1 bo7 tiebreaker.


Alternatives possible :
A.
RR: Each match consists of 6 games.
KO: Each match consists of 6/8 games. Tiebreaker : games won.

B.
RR: Each match is a bo5.
KO. Each match is bo7.

C.
Any decent proposal offered by a contributor.

Personal observation : tiebreaker seemed to give a heavy weight to one single player in a team during NC 2012.


3. TNT.
Observation :
NC was the first TTR online tourney created online when TTR online community has barely started to exist. It aimed at allowing as many players as possible to play NC... and to promote the community to be more inclusive.
Now that community has grown, and that several tourneys are offered :
Is NC still aiming at being inclusive and at welcoming TNT's ?

Truck's offer (amended by Stephan):

Should we allow Trans-National teams in the Nation's cup ?:
A. Yes
B. No.
It's a Nation's Cup after all, and most of the stupid discussions seem to revolve around people's feeling of entitlement to do whatever they want in forming a TNT.
C. The ticket to ride nation's cup is a world championship to decide to the strongest national TEAM. Each country selects its strongest team and this team is entered into the competition.

If YES would be community's vote, would you support :
D. the more the merrier, everyone should be allowed to play
E. Only regional alliances (like Scandinavia, Can-US, Asia, Italy-Swiss), as approved by the TD


We need consistency here. Main argument against a maximum number of player was "NC should be inclusive, and some players wouldn't play if they were part of another (sub)Team."
Custom has allowed TNT to participate, and if we want to be more inclusive, then I don't know why they should not be allowed to sign up.


4. Registration.

Observation :
I'd agree with GSV there, registration can be chaotic and could be improved -even without drama-.

Proposal, remodeling GSV's ideas and revamping current registration rules:

1.
One first phase of registration.
a. Every player has to sign-up for NC : either through his Captain when registering his national team, either individually when a player is not part yet of a national team.
b. When registering their national team, captains should mention if their team is full or not.
c. A player rejected by a full team has to make himself known and has to register individually.
d. TD, at his discretion, can request any player to confirm individually his participation to NC.


2.
Second phase of registration.
a. All incomplete national teams at the end of first phase and individuals are allowed to complete their national team or to form a TNT.
b. All the players who registered in the 1st phase should be included in a team.
c. 2 players with the same nationality are automatically part of the same TNT.
d. If all the players registered in the first phase are part of a team, captains of an incomplete TNT or captains of an incomplete national team are allowed to contact extra players. Any extra player has to submit his registration individually by pm to the TD. Any registration is then submitted to TD's approval.

Observation :
This would make the whole process more transparent. Any team would then be built in the open, with players that personally signed up. Less drama, no bad surprises.
TD would have the option to check any random registration to make sure that the seeding of a team is legit.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 December 2012 03:25]

      
dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 2010
Registered:
September 2005
Re:Wordings Fri, 14 December 2012 13:36
C. The ticket to ride nation's cup is a world championship to decide to the strongest national TEAM. Each country selects its strongest team and this team is entered into the competition.

I think we need a clarification on this one, or maybe 2 versions:
Are small countries allowed to add players from big countries who didn't make it to their national team (or didn't want to be part of it)?
Effect:
Kostass could have a team for Greece, consisting of himself and 5 Germans/Americans/French.
GSV could have a team for Belgium, and add some other Germans/Americans/French
Will could have a team for UK with 4 UK players plus 2 Germans/Americans/French (but he could NOT team up with Kostasss or GSV, as they have to build teams for Greece and Belgium).
...

Also we would need to define who has the right to decide on the national team for big countries. (Or we'd have to define a selection process that has to be followed, but I guess this should be left to the countries).
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Fri, 14 December 2012 14:24
Or we could leave the very hypothetical option C. out and not waste our energy and misunderstandings on this.

Also, the sign-up process seems very clear to me:
- First, Nation's teams sign up, captains do so
- After this phase, TNT's can be formed, captains sign up
Nothing unclear about that it would seem.

If anything is unclear, players or prospective players may read the rules or ask questions. This seems to work fine for 95% of the people. I don't think the other 5% are helped by any attempt at clarification if they don't read the rules or ask questions.
      
GSV3
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 703
Registered:
May 2009
Re:Wordings Fri, 14 December 2012 14:28
Yep, we need some clarification about signing-up and how to solve all possible issues.

Let's take the first one (with an example).
Team SOS has enough players to register and don't want to put Peter d.Z. in the list of players (not good enough, bad team spirit or whatever, dosn't the matter).
So, according to the rules, Peter may join another team.
Nobody complained when Peter joined WASA.

Let's take the opposite now.
Team SOS has enough players to register and don't want to put Truckerteller in the list of players, for some reason...
So, according to the rules, Sven may join another team.
I cannot imagine the reactions of the community if Truck would like to join WASA.

to be continued...
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Fri, 14 December 2012 15:12
Truckerteller wrote on Thu, 13 December 2012 14:55

I would not play for a TNT.



Bad example.

In theory, every country can leave out its strongest player and 6 of these can form a TNT which has a higher ELO than UEG. In theory 6 players can decide at the very last day to play NC and when some of their national teams are "full" or it's hard to reach the captain or whatever, they could again, in theory form a TNT with a higher ELO than UEG.

In theory, lots of things can happen, also with scheduling, people having artificially high or low elo's because of deliberately losing (to your teammates possibly). A lot of these 'possibilities' have been discussed in very lenghty and sometimes unfriendly previous NC discussions.

In reality, I think it's the TD's job to decide what is bullsh*t, issue some warnings and keep players from entering the competition when it's clear they don't seem to care about the rules or a 'normal' way of forming teams. We cannot think of rules to deal with any kind of situation in advance.

[Updated on: Fri, 14 December 2012 15:13]

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2665
Registered:
December 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Fri, 14 December 2012 15:45
Well, if every player who wants to play then signs up in the first phase, then bullsh*t is at least in the open, and TD can act beforehand = no drama, no misunderstanding.

A late BS registration in 2nd phase, that can not be seen in advance, requires a TD ruling and delays the groupping.
We can't really afford a week to end of 2nd phase of registration, to form the groups and the start of NC, schedule was tight enough this year.
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Fri, 14 December 2012 16:00
So, apparently things were so unclear the last 5 years, that we need a more elaborate sign up rule-set ? Who is going to be captain if we only have individuals signing up ?

In the two years of TD I have seen no issues with signing up teams with people/captains who read the rules. I don't see anything wrong with how things currently are.
      
GSV3
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 703
Registered:
May 2009
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Fri, 14 December 2012 18:08
Don't take it personally, Truck. You did and still do a great job as TD. Hats off.
I'm not Angel (not speaking about the player but expert in stats) to check if the proportion of 95/5% is correct. Let's assume it is.
We can try to reduce this percentage to 1 or 2%, no?
I think we all are more or less on the same line, trying to put players of the same country as much as possible together, and avoid too many TNT. If we can clarify some aspects of the rules, it would be nice.
My purpose was to have a clear registration phase.
I'm pretty sure you cannot imagine how hard it is to form a TNT, assuming that there are some players you don't know!
Lets' take another example to illustrate this idea.
As belgian player, from a small country, the possibility to form a national team is very low (but not impossible). If I have to wait for Phase 2 (TNT), the probability will decrease.
When there are already 3 or 4 players after Phase 1, it becomes less difficult.
      
Cromze
Senior Member

Posts: 405
Registered:
September 2009
Re:Wordings Sun, 16 December 2012 17:42
Sysyphus écrit le Fri, 14 December 2012 02:52


I think it was clear 2p USA ELO should still be used : I didn't read anyone promoting something other than 2p+USA ELO.



Imho 2p score ONLY should be used as reference, not 2p+USA ELO.
Some teams with good multiplayers (AMD for example) might be seeded too hight. Without USA ELO, some teams with good players on 2p non-USA maps could be seeded too hight as well, but they are less than multiplayers. Moreover, good players on 2p non-USA maps are generally good at USA 2p too, while good multiplayers can be top20 in USA and rank 250 in 2p (I already experienced that...)

Can we ask Dow for a new statistic which would calculate the "real" 2p USA score ? I don't know if the community already asked Dow that kind of reform, I don't know if it's possible...
      
Truckerteller
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 695
Registered:
October 2007
Re:Wordings Sun, 16 December 2012 18:05
Cromze - Pouilly-fumé wrote on Sun, 16 December 2012 17:42

Sysyphus écrit le Fri, 14 December 2012 02:52


I think it was clear 2p USA ELO should still be used : I didn't read anyone promoting something other than 2p+USA ELO.



Imho 2p score ONLY should be used as reference, not 2p+USA ELO.
Some teams with good multiplayers (AMD for example) might be seeded too hight. Without USA ELO, some teams with good players on 2p non-USA maps could be seeded too hight as well, but they are less than multiplayers. Moreover, good players on 2p non-USA maps are generally good at USA 2p too, while good multiplayers can be top20 in USA and rank 250 in 2p (I already experienced that...)

Can we ask Dow for a new statistic which would calculate the "real" 2p USA score ? I don't know if the community already asked Dow that kind of reform, I don't know if it's possible...


I fully agree
      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2665
Registered:
December 2007
Re:Wordings Sun, 16 December 2012 19:38
I thought I had posted something similar about only 2p ELO but can't find the post. It was maybe in the French forum or just discussed when we met with Cromze.
I obviously agree there.

Well, we could gather a wishlist in a separate thread and ask DOW if they can do something with our proposals.
      
Knockando
Senior Member
T2R Multi-Player World Championship 2010 Winner

Posts: 1408
Registered:
January 2010
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Mon, 17 December 2012 13:23
AT_dea1 wrote :


Quote:

Once again let me confirm that I agree with Kasi.
Scheduling is a lot easier if you agree on times per slot beforehand.

Differences to round robin and also the other knockout stages are:
*) More people want to watch, so it's a good idea to have "good times"
*) Some teams may have a strategy in which order they would like the matches to be played.
With agreed times per slot that's easy - you want your best player to play the last match? Put him on slot #4.
If somebody tries to achieve that with "the normal way", he will delay the process by only offering times
to his opp after all the other matches have an agreed date.
This is a) not nice and b) will produce a deadlock if the opp's captain has the same (secret) target for another match.

Correct, there never was a vote on that, but I think there should be.
As long as the teams reaching the final get along well, let them do what they want (this year they do, so all is fine).
But I'd like to have the right to ask for pre arranged slot times if I ever make it to a final again.
I suggest a vote as followes:
Shall the playing times per slot be agreed by the captains before the lineup for the final is sent to the TD?
A) YES, always
B) YES, if one of the two captains asks for it
C) NO (if both teams like it, they can of course still do it)


GSV3 wrote :
Quote:

That's the way how we have proceeded:
Week-End 15-16 DEC was irrealistic to make agreements.
So we decided to play on 22-23.
Slot 1 : Sat 22, 18:00
Slot 2 : Sat 22, 20:00
Slot 3 : Sun 23, 18:00
Slot 4 : Sun 23, 20:00
Slot 5 : Sun 23, 22:00 (tie-break if needed)

Was not possible for Goscha.

So we decided to play on 21 and 23.
Slot 1 : Fri 21, 18:00
Slot 2 : Fri 21, 20:00
Slot 3 : Sun 23, 18:00
Slot 4 : Sun 23, 20:00
Slot 5 : Sun 23, 22:00 (tie-break if needed)

Possible, except for Olof.

In fact, this is exactly the same as you proposed to add in a specific rule.


Not true GSV3 , you didn't understand well.

Proposal is :
1st define 4 spots, for game 1 with player 1 of each team, game 2 with player 2, etc
2d send the line-up according to the avaibilities of your players (you know before sendind your line-up when each of your players will play)
3d wait the defined time to play, no need for any scheduling !
      
GSV3
Senior Member

User Pages
Posts: 703
Registered:
May 2009
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Mon, 17 December 2012 16:26
Yes, Knock, you're right.
This is not exactly the same as proposed by dea.
I understand now.

Imho, not sure if dea's idea is good. Have to think about it.
As suggested, we can ask a vote.

      
Sysyphus - Pommard
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2013 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2665
Registered:
December 2007
Re:NC 2012 : Rules and discussion Mon, 17 December 2012 18:38
I don't see any problem this year.

All matches are scheduled at very decent times (even Goscha scheduled pretty fast ! Wink ). At least, captains did it in the open and showed the community that there was a discussion to find a compromise.

Sure, playing prime time is better but there were also a couple matches in semis with nobody in the bleachers... What's best for the players is more important than what's best for the spectators.
If an American team would make it to the final (not quite close yet, but still a possibility), should they play european prime time to satisfy the spectators ?

More than a way to schedule the final, communication is what matters. If communication is good, schedule will be good, with fixed slots or not.
More than a new rule, it's important to let the captains take the responsibility of their final.


[Updated on: Mon, 17 December 2012 18:39]

      
Pages (6): [ «  <  1  2  3  4  5  6 ]     
Previous Topic:NC 2012: Schedule / Line-ups / Pairings
Next Topic:MPWC - group D
Goto Forum: