Memoir '44 D-Day Landings Memoir '44 D-Day Landings

Forums

Search
Forums » T2R Competitive Play - English » FUSION CUP 2014
Show: Today's Posts 
  
AuthorTopic
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 943
Registered:
January 2005
FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 11 January 2014 03:53
I know that with NEW league getting off the ground, people may not want to hear this, but The FUSION CUP is just a weeks away from when it is supposed to start. (February)

So if you have opinions on Rules and rule changes, please let me know. Below are links to the rules of 2013.

Rules of 2013 found on tickipedia : http://www.tickipedia.net/wiki/Fusion_Cup

[Updated on: Sat, 11 January 2014 04:02]

      
Sysyphus
Senior Member
T2R All Around Tournament 2011 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2146
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 11 January 2014 04:05
I was going to open registration tomorrow, according to ticki calendar.

A thread to discuss rules ?
      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 943
Registered:
January 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 11 January 2014 05:47
Sysyphus - Pommard wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 22:05


A thread to discuss rules ?

Sure. People may have opinions we need to hear. So let them speak them here.
      
Knockando PPB
Senior Member
T2R Multi-Player World Championship 2010 Winner

Posts: 1141
Registered:
January 2010
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 11 January 2014 09:28
I think rules can be the same as last year
      
GANG_dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 1859
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 11 January 2014 12:44
Last year's rules were good, let's stay with them and get it going.

The only suggestion I remember from last year was Drake's idea on the tiebreaker for KO (maybe not make it TAG), otherwise everyone seemed absolutely content with everything.

Start in 3 weeks according to calendar (and that's needed in order not to overlap with SPWC), so really not much time to discuss.

Looking forward to a great Fusion Cup, I enjoyed it very much last year.
      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Posts: 776
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sun, 12 January 2014 22:55
Yes, I think the Tie Breaker being TAG needs to be changed.

There are only a handful of players who have any experience with TAG.

If do not want to use my suggestion from last year, then I say make it the USA match.
      
G7 Will
Senior Member
Pumpkin Master

Posts: 364
Registered:
June 2010
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 01:26
I don't remember... but maybe the AAT-type matchup needs adjusting to include asia? might not have been out same time last year
      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 943
Registered:
January 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 03:37
DrakeStorm wrote on Sun, 12 January 2014 16:55

Yes, I think the Tie Breaker being TAG needs to be changed.

There are only a handful of players who have any experience with TAG.

If do not want to use my suggestion from last year, then I say make it the USA match.


Well, in a preliminary discussion with just a few people, there is a thought that we should try a different tiebreaker. We were thinking that perhaps it would be something you had suggested: assigning factors to each slot individually. Could you write more about how that might work in a tiebreaker?

TO Will: Asia was in play last year already.

[Updated on: Mon, 13 January 2014 15:52]

      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Posts: 776
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 07:00
Tie Breaker Suggestion:

Line ups are sent in with each match listed in ranking of importance.

Match results being Win = 1, Tie = .5, Loss = 0

The result of match 1 is multiplied by 4
The result of match 2 is multiplies by 3
The result of match 3 is multiplies by 2
The result of match 4 is multiplies by 1

The team with the highest sum wins.

Only thing Captain needs to do is to list their line up with the match/format they think they have best chance of winning first, next strongest match/format listed second, etc.

Example:
Team 1 line up
USA
TAG
AAT
USA/EU

Team 2 line up
AAT
TAG
USA
USA/EU

Now say the results of clash between Team 1 and 2 =
USA - Team 1 wins
TAG - Team 2 wins
AAT - Team 1 and 2 tie
USA/EU - Team 2 wins

Team 1 points = 4*1(USA) + 3*0(TAG) + 2*.5(AAT) + 1*0(EU) = 5
Team 2 points = 4*.5(AAT) + 3*1(TAG) + 2*0(USA) + 1*1(EU) = 6

Team 2 wins tie breaker.

May seem complicated, but is simply multiplying a few numbers, and it is just for a tie breaker which might not even come up.
      
GANG_dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 1859
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 10:06
I think it is very likely that the teams still tie (under the not so likely assumption that they tie on matches and games in the first place).

If GANG played team Drake our lineups would probably be (not even knowing who his teammates will be - unless he produces an Angel out of a box):

GANG:
EU (Trucker rocks)
US (and so does Kasi)
TAG (sorry Hecki, but our teammates rock)
AAT (we know that Drake is the best AAT player)

Team Drake:
AAT (Drake knows that he is the best AAT player)
TAG (and he knows that Trucker and Kasi rock)
EU (now let's assume Drake rates Kasi higher than Trucker to show that it doesn't make a difference)
US

If - according to expectations - Team Drake wins AAT and TAG, GANG wins US and EU, both end up with 7 points (4*1+3*1+2*0+1*0) for the Tiebreaker.

Anyway, it is possible that they still tie - so we need a final tiebreaker just in case.
      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 943
Registered:
January 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 15:31
DrakeStorm wrote on Mon, 13 January 2014 01:00

Tie Breaker Suggestion:

Now say the results of clash between Team 1 and 2 =
USA - Team 1 wins
TAG - Team 2 wins
AAT - Team 1 and 2 tie
USA/EU - Team 2 wins

Team 1 points = 4*1(USA) + 3*0(TAG) + 2*.5(AAT) + 1*0(EU) = 5
Team 2 points = 4*.5(AAT) + 3*1(TAG) + 2*0(USA) + 1*1(EU) = 6

Team 2 wins tie breaker.

May seem complicated, but is simply multiplying a few numbers, and it is just for a tie breaker which might not even come up.


Drake,
You have confused me with this example. Does this match example need a tie-breaker?
Team 1 has 1.5 points and Team 2 has 2.5, so no tiebreaker is needed.


Also, as I look at applying your system as tiebreaker, I seem to note the Tiebreaker is only needed to decide 'advancing to the knock-out/play-off phase'. So wouldn't captains already know results and place the line-up to fullest advantage since they already know the results?

Is there a different tiebreaker being talked about here, one that is done before a match?

Oh I am sorry and I think I get when you mean to apply this tie-breaker. It is for during a KO match, thus captains can put in the line-up with priority system.
And it is interesting that in rules there is not mention of this tiebreaker. The only mention we have is referring to rules section under clash scoring.
In determining overall records for advancing to the knock-out/play-off phase, Clashes won is primary determining factor. In case of a tie, First tiebreaker is clashes won, then matches won, then points won, then TAG result, then AAT result, then US/EU result, then USA result. So what has occurred is the application of this tiebreaker is done to the KO round match. So reality is, we are talking about a specific situation where there is no written rule at this point.
On an aside, I know some feel TAG is best tiebreaker since it involves 2 players of a team, and this is a team event. This was reason TAG was placed where it was, and AAT was placed next since again, the thought was FUSION should be different than the usual map US dominance of all the other tournaments.

[Updated on: Mon, 13 January 2014 15:49]

      
The Tinman
Member

User Pages
Posts: 81
Registered:
January 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 18:37
I think any tiebreaker rule that gives the win based on the order players were listed is ridiculous. A tie should be broken by a game, not because someone was listed first.
      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Posts: 776
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 20:37
onyx puffin AMP wrote on Mon, 13 January 2014 06:31

Clashes won is primary determining factor. In case of a tie, First tiebreaker is clashes won, then matches won, then points won, then TAG result, then AAT result, then US/EU result, then USA result.


My rule just replaces the "then TAG result, then AAT result, then US/EU result, then USA result".

Why should the team with the best TAG team win ties versus a team with the better USA/EU or AAT player?

My idea just lets each team rank the importance of the 4 different matches. So a team with a strong TAG team has the same chance of winning the tie breaker as a team with a Strong USA/AAT/EU player.

It is very similar to the rule used in NC this year, modified to make sense for having 4 different formats.

This idea is for getting into the KO and during the KO phase.

My idea doesn't create any new games that need to be played or anything else. All that changes is when captains send in lineups, they order them with their strongest format first, and weakest last.

The odds of it going to this tie breaker for determining who gets into the RR is small.

The odds of it going to this tie breaker during KO phase is a little greater, and there is a small chance it still results in a tie, so could leave current tie breaker rule added after this one. The "then TAG result, then...".
      
DrakeStorm
Senior Member

Posts: 776
Registered:
March 2006
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 20:50
onyx

Drake,
You have confused me with this example. Does this match example need a tie-breaker?
Team 1 has 1.5 points and Team 2 has 2.5, so no tiebreaker is needed.


Yes, bad example - it wouldn't goto tie breaker in the first place!


The Tinman wrote on Mon, 13 January 2014 09:37

A tie should be broken by a game.


This is probably true, but most time tournaments are running barely on schedule, so adding in another game or match can be difficult. In KO, playing the whole match over would be cool, but not realistic.

And in this format, what game/match would it be?
      
GANG_dea1
Senior Member
T2R Nation Cup 2007 Winner

Posts: 1859
Registered:
September 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Mon, 13 January 2014 23:47
DrakeStorm schrieb am Mon, 13 January 2014 20:37


The odds of it going to this tie breaker during KO phase is a little greater, and there is a small chance it still results in a tie, so could leave current tie breaker rule added after this one. The "then TAG result, then...".

That makes good sense in my eyes.
Fusion is the event to try things out, so why not try it
      
The Tinman
Member

User Pages
Posts: 81
Registered:
January 2009
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 18 January 2014 00:57

And in this format, what game/match would it be?
[/quote]


Since USA is the most played it should be that

[Updated on: Sat, 18 January 2014 00:59]

      
onyx puffin
Senior Member

Posts: 943
Registered:
January 2005
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 18 January 2014 04:56
The Tinman wrote on Mon, 13 January 2014 12:37

I think any tiebreaker rule that gives the win based on the order players were listed is ridiculous. A tie should be broken by a game, not because someone was listed first.


With this notation, could we make a proposal:
For a tie in the KO round, winner will be decided by captains submitting 1 player (or team if tag) who can be free to play a match before the last day of the KO round (or on the last day if possible). Captains of the two tied teams can discuss which game of the 4 types will be used for the 1 (or 3)game tiebreaker. By mutual agreement of the two captains, we will use the game of their choice. If they cannot agree, then the US board will be used.

[Updated on: Sat, 18 January 2014 14:22]

      
Sysyphus
Senior Member
T2R All Around Tournament 2011 Winner

User Pages
Posts: 2146
Registered:
December 2007
Re:FUSION CUP 2014 Sat, 18 January 2014 06:06
Well,

Well reducing the "importance"(because it is a very slight detail overall) of TAG in order to promote US map in case of a tie, does not sound very "Fusion Cup" to me.

To Break a tie in KO, I'd rather see a 5th match Swiss/Asia on the model of US/EU. But since we are half way through registration, I like TAG as a tie-breaker.
      
    
Previous Topic:MPWC Group G (SF)
Next Topic:TAG training
Goto Forum: