Aventuriers du Rail Londres Aventuriers du Rail Londres

Forums

Recherche
Forums » T2R Competitive Play - English » rules clarification discussion
Montrer: Messages du jour 
  
AuteurSujet
Zeno
Senior Member
Cadet

Pages Perso
Messages: 582
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
rules clarification discussion Wed, 27 September 2006 16:42
Edit: original post superseded by rules clarification discussion. Digraphs still available at http://www.shamogi.de/nc06/

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 28 September 2006 02:49]

      
RFAD - Saint-Emilion
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3792
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:A visual representation of the results from NC Wed, 27 September 2006 18:29
Intresting but it's not very clear...

I prefere :

GROUP A
     |  THK  | FSUI  |  GTS  |  ORA  |  DOG  |  RBA  |  GUT  |  | Vic | Def | +/- |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
THK  |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   | 3 / 2 |   /   |   /   | 5 / 0 |  |  2  |  0  | + 6 | matchs
(1)  |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   | 12/11 |   /   |   /   | 15/05 |  |  27 |  16 | +11 | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
FSUI |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   | 4 / 1 | 2 / 3 |   /   |  |  1  |  1  | + 2 | matchs
(2)  |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   | 14/08 | 10/11 |   /   |  |  24 |  19 | + 5 | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
GTS  |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   | 2 / 3 |   /   |   /   |  |  0  |  1  | - 1 | matchs*
(7)  |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   | 10/10 |   /   |   /   |  |  10 |  10 |  0  | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
ORA  | 2 / 3 |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |   /   |  |  0  |  1  | - 1 | matchs*
(6)  | 11/12 |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |   /   |  |  11 |  12 | - 1 | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
DOG  |   /   | 1 / 4 | 3 / 2 |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |  |  1  |  1  | - 2 | matchs
(4)  |   /   | 08/14 | 10/10 |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |  |  18 |  24 | - 6 | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
RBA  |   /   | 3 / 2 |   /   |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx| 2 / 3 |  |  1  |  1  |  0  | matchs
(3)  |   /   | 11/10 |   /   |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx| 08/13 |  |  19 |  23 | - 4 | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
GUT  | 0 / 5 |   /   |   /   |   /   |   /   | 3 / 2 |xxxxxxx|  |  1  |  1  | - 4 | matchs
(5)  | 05/15 |   /   |   /   |   /   |   /   | 13/08 |xxxxxxx|  |  18 |  23 | - 5 | parties
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Classement (X@v)
1. Re-Tink (THK)                  2 / 0 / +6 / +11
2. FINg-ShUI (FSUI)               1 / 1 / +2 / + 5
3. Rail Barons (USA3)             1 / 1 /  0 / - 4
4. Underdogs (DOG)                1 / 1 / -2 / - 6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. German Underdog Team (GUT)     1 / 1 / -4 / - 5
7. German Train Smashers (GTS)    0 / 1 / -1 /  0 
6. Orange (ORA)                   0 / 1 / -1 / - 1


This message enables me to see that "my" ranking is different from the official one. If we compare the ORA's ranking with the GTS's one, there are 2 options:
- Official : ORA is in front of GTS because they won 11 games unlike GTS which won 10.
- "my" ranking : GTS leads ORA as they won 10 games, lost 10 and have a goal average of 0. ORA won 11 games, lost 12 so have a goal average of -1.
I checked the rules and did not find anything regarding this matter. I think that it's better to decide ASAP. What do you think?


GROUP B

      | USA 1 |  AUT  |  RED  |  OLE  |  PES  |  WHT  | ESP   |  DoW  |  | Vic | Def | +/- |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
USA 1 |xxxxxxx|   /   | 0 / 5 |   /   |   /   | 2 / 3 |   /   |   /   |  |  0  |  2  | - 6 |
(7)   |xxxxxxx|   /   | 06/15 |   /   |   /   | 07/11 |   /   |   /   |  |  13 |  26 | -13 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
AUT   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   | 2 / 3 | 4 / 1 |   /   |   /   |   /   |  |  1  |  1  | + 2 |
(3)   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   | 09/11 | 14/06 |   /   |   /   |   /   |  |  23 |  17 | + 6 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
RED   | 5 / 0 |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |   /   | 1 / 4 |   /   |  |  1  |  1  | + 2 |
(4)   | 15/06 |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |   /   | 09/14 |   /   |  |  24 |  20 | + 4 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
OLE   |   /   | 3 / 2 |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |   /   | 5 / 0 |  |  2  |  0  | + 6 |
(1)   |   /   | 11/09 |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   |   /   | 15/02 |  |  26 |  11 | +15 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
PES   |   /   | 1 / 4 |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   | 4 / 1 |  |  1  |  1  |  0  |
(5)   |   /   | 06/14 |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|   /   |   /   | 14/04 |  |  20 |  18 | + 2 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
WHT   | 3 / 2 |   /   |   /   |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx| 1 / 4 |   /   |  |  1  |  1  | - 2 |
(6)   | 11/07 |   /   |   /   |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx| 09/13 |   /   |  |  20 |  20 |  0  |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
ESP   |   /   |   /   | 4 / 1 |   /   |   /   | 4 / 1 |xxxxxxx|   /   |  |  2  |  0  | + 6 |
(2)   |   /   |   /   | 14/09 |   /   |   /   | 13/09 |xxxxxxx|   /   |  |  27 |  18 | + 9 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
DoW   |   /   |   /   |   /   | 0 / 5 | 1 / 4 |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|  |  0  |  2  | - 8 |
(x)   |   /   |   /   |   /   | 02/15 | 04/14 |   /   |   /   |xxxxxxx|  |  06 |  29 | -23 |
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------
Classement X@v
1. OLE	                         2 / 0 / +6 / +15
2. Catalunya (ESP)                2 / 0 / +6 / + 9
3. Austria (AUT)                  1 / 1 / +2 / + 6
4. Red TGV                        1 / 1 / +2 / + 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Pre-Emptive Strike (PES) USA2  1 / 1 /  0 / + 2
6. White TGV (WHT)                1 / 1 / -2 / 0  
7. Homeland Security (USA1)       0 / 2 / -6 / -13
8. Days of Wonder (DOW)           0 / 2 / -8 / -23

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 28 September 2006 18:18]

      
dea1
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 2287
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2005
Re:A visual representation of the results from NC Wed, 27 September 2006 22:10
agreed RFAD

I mentioned the same thing in the Nations Cup discussion thread.

I vote for your method -
not because it's better for Austria at the moment but because it seems more logical to me:
I don't like the idea that the exact result of a match is important for the loser but meaningless for the winner.

For matches won it's only relevant in group A - won't matter in the end (because each team will have played the same number of matches) but gives a better few as long as not everyone has had the bye.

For games won it will be relevant as potential tiebreaker in the end (the difference arises because the number of games played is not the same as we play best of 5 and stop when the winner has 3 points).

And yes - Please, TD, let's have a decision asap - towards the end of the round robin we will know which method is beneficial for which team and collecting unbiased opinions from captains will be impossible.

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 27 September 2006 22:12]

      
OLE Masimo
Senior Member
Vainqueur FEUd Cup AdR 2009

Pages Perso
Messages: 809
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:A visual representation of the results from NC Wed, 27 September 2006 23:48
I agree with RFAD and dea - we should change to their counting of games. It is not just the number of games a team wins, but also the number of games a team looses that gives a correct view of a teams rank.
I `d like to encourage the oher captains to post their opinion here and to adopt this ranking scheme to the NC.

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 27 September 2006 23:49]

      
SKMorefield
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 619
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2005
Re:A visual representation of the results from NC Thu, 28 September 2006 02:27
I agree also...
      
Elric - Sancerre
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2013

Pages Perso
Messages: 1880
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:A visual representation of the results from NC Thu, 28 September 2006 02:46
OLE-Masimo écrit le Wed, 27 September 2006 23:48

I `d like to encourage the oher captains to post their opinion here...

... good
OLE-Masimo écrit le Wed, 27 September 2006 23:48

... and to adopt this ranking scheme to the NC.

hmmm... lobbying ???!!! Rolling Eyes Twisted Evil

No, sorry, but I COMPLETELY disagree with you.The rules are very clear... We all know them, and signed for it ! And I think you didn't check very well, RFAD...

bassie écrit le Sat, 08 July 2006 00:49

3.8 Miscellaneous

(...)

- To decide upon rank in the round robin, number of clashes won is the first tiebreaker, then number of matches won, then number of games won, then the round robin result between the relevant teams.


And I don't see any advantage or disadvantage in this rule, versus the one you try to promote.

It's simple :
More games you win, more match you have the chance to win, more points your team can add !
And each game won, even when you lose the match at the end, is counted for your team !

Yes, there will be differences (and it's already the case) between the OFFICIAL status board, and yours, and like you said, dea, it's because we play this year "classic" best-of-3... and I think that, on the contrary, these 2 rules taken both (about ranking, and about best-of-3) are better than last year :

Let's take an example. I play against Nicole, and win the first 3 games.
- Last year : we play 5 games anyway, and maybe, the final result can be 3-2. I count 3 for my team, and Nicole 2 for her team.
- This year : it's over, and I count 3 for my team, and Nicole 0 for her team ==> fair !
If Nicole can count 2 for her team, that will be because she deserved it by a strong oppposition ==> fair !

So, where is the problem ?

Sorry again, IMO, no decision to take, these rules are clear and we all play with the same from the beginning !
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Baaaaaaaaaaaaad Rule! Thu, 28 September 2006 16:06
Hi

Bull****, Elric Smile

Bassie had taken the same rules as last year not thinking about the difference in the "all-games-played" and "play-till-3-wins".

This is a crappy rule and a clear mistake. We don't need wrong rules so let's change them. I think everybody sees the difference between a 15:0 win and a 15:10 win...

Edit: Of course there would be no difference between two teams, every team count the wins so a 15:10 for A is 1/5/15 and 0/0/10 otherwise 1/5/+5 and 0/0/-5. Even a round robin between three teams is no problem... But let's say we have the 4 teams A, B, C, D and between A, B and C it's a "overall tie", every team has 1/5/15 or 1/5/+5. Now the teams play against the always losing team D but A wins with 15:0, B with 15:5 and C with 15:10... Of course the wins are counted for team D but this is useless! But A, B and C score 15 points and are tied after the round robin! So the diffence lies not in a direct match it lies in the games against the teams NOT qualified for quarterfinal!

I can't describe how wrong this sort of counting is...

If we will not allow for rule changing we shouldn't punish our slave at home, because it's told so in the Old Testament. Rolling Eyes Hm? You don't have a slave? So you are poor...

Me no captain? Let's say i speak in the name of sebbo... Wink

bye, erps

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 28 September 2006 16:22]

      
RFAD - Saint-Emilion
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3792
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:Baaaaaaaaaaaaad Rule! Thu, 28 September 2006 17:10
for once I agree completely with ERPS : this rules are ok if you play 5 matchs... but with the new system it's not valid.... it's a mystake and i hope that change !

hum... me either I am not a captain and I hope that TEE will go in my direction Razz

P.S. : pourquoi est-ce que j'étais sur qu'Elric serait contre ? Rolling Eyes Twisted Evil

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 28 September 2006 17:11]

      
Elric - Sancerre
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2013

Pages Perso
Messages: 1880
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
  Aaaaaah.... a new interessant thread ! Thu, 28 September 2006 22:59
hmm... erps also... of course Twisted Evil Laughing Laughing

So, for you (the " good-volonteers-writers-for-our-childish-community " in this thread !), it's never NEVER enough... to always want to rule the world... at least, to rule our little community Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad

PS : désolé Xavier, je ne fais qu'appliquer les règles... c'est simple ! Mais à vrai dire, je m'en contre-fous... +6, -4, etc... ou 25, 32, 27, etc... c'est du pareil au même ! Par contre, le prends pas mal, mais ton tableau, il est vraiment pas top top...

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 28 September 2006 23:01]

      
RFAD - Saint-Emilion
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3792
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:Aaaaaah.... a new interessant thread ! Fri, 29 September 2006 00:04
It is not even on this regle is used after 7 round but it does not prevent as one says in French "better are worth to prevent only to guerir"...

For the rules, I am pret has to bet a victory in NC that not a captain had not seen the made implication of this regle year last and kept just as it is without paying to has the influence of the best of 3 instead of always the 5 matches me finally...

P.S : "mon" tableau il est bien plus lisible que l'autre : on sait contre qui on a fait quel score (je te met au défi de me dire ça simplement avec l'autre...). Mais bon c'ets aps bien grave l'essentiel c'ets de gagner Razz
      
Elric - Sancerre
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2013

Pages Perso
Messages: 1880
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:Aaaaaah.... a new interessant thread ! Fri, 29 September 2006 01:19
blablabla... blablabla...

PS (le plus intéressant Very Happy) : je parlais surtout du look, en fait Rolling Eyes ... car on le dirait tout droit sorti d'un vieil ordinateur est-allemand des années 70 Wink Laughing Laughing Laughing (si ça se trouve, ça existait même pas là-bas à cette èpoque Laughing ) Non, vraiment, quand on a goûté au site de shamogi...

PPS : et sinon, avec le classement officiel ou le tien, on arrive au même résultat à la fin du 3ème round Razz
      
thadd
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2008

Messages: 253
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2004
Re:Aaaaaah.... a new interessant thread ! Fri, 29 September 2006 03:15
pire que les gosses...
      
RFAD - Saint-Emilion
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3792
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:Aaaaaah.... a new interessant thread ! Fri, 29 September 2006 07:44
Embarassed Peut-etre apres 3 round mais le truc c'est d'être certain de ne aps avoir de "probleme" lors du classement final.... Enfin je suis pas capitaine alors je laisse decider les "grandes personnes" Wink

[Mis à jour le: Fri, 29 September 2006 07:48]

      
OLE Masimo
Senior Member
Vainqueur FEUd Cup AdR 2009

Pages Perso
Messages: 809
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:A visual representation of the results from NC Fri, 29 September 2006 09:01
SORRY RFAD, ELRIC, but i personally don`t speak any french Crying or Very Sad what i appologize for, but therefor could be so kind and write in english in the english forum? (maybee what you wrote wasn`t meant for me to read?)


Elric - Sancerre schrieb am Thu, 28 September 2006 02:46


OLE-Masimo écrit le Wed, 27 September 2006 23:48

... and to adopt this ranking scheme to the NC.

hmmm... lobbying ???!!! Rolling Eyes Twisted Evil



ooops - didn`t realize it could be interpreted that way ... just wanted to post my firm believe that this is the better way of counting (erps explained why that is so!)


Elric - Sancerre schrieb am Thu, 28 September 2006 02:46


Sorry again, IMO, no decision to take, these rules are clear and we all play with the same from the beginning !


I agree with you here, we undersigned the rules, but the rules also give way to interpretation as

bassie schrieb am Sat, 08 July 2006 00:49


........

- In case of a dispute, one of the involved captains sends a PM to THE TD with a copy to the other captain. The decision will be under the discretion of the TD. SHE will inform both captains by PM about their decision AND POST IT IN THE ORGANISATIONAL THREAD IF NECESSARY.




agreeable there was another idea behind this rule, but what, if at the end the counting really is of importance? Then we dohave a dispute between teams!

I still hope that the different counting will not make any difference at the end ..........




As you might have noticed there are quite a few points arising while we play the NC!
That`s why i want to point back to another post from erps earlier this month and ask again to bring his suggestion to work:

erps schrieb am Wed, 20 September 2006 12:50

Hi
......

Regarding the rules...


I think we should VOTE for the rules DURING this NC for the next NC!

We have 15 captains, we have bassie as inventor and thadd as TD. They should vote for all rules and claim who is responsible for rule changes during the NC. Of course they can vote to invite other players into the legislature... Wink

We need 2 part of rules, the META-rules (changing the rules, deciding order etc.) and the actual rules for the games and scoring.

The game rules should not as detailed as they are now. For a first draft it is enough to say that above some number of teams they will be divided in groups. Now you can make an Addendum of the rules, that do the diving by numbers or ranking.

The rules for NC and all other tournaments should be stored on a special site or thread. If someone is trying to organize a tournament he can use this rules as template for the tournament rules.

bye, erps




if we wait till another tournament to discuss rules we will have long discussions about rules again and still miss out relevant points.


bye Masimo
      
OLE sebbo
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 439
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Fri, 29 September 2006 19:08
Of course i agree to RFAD and erps. Its self-evident that their proposals are correct.

cheers
sebbo
      
SKMorefield
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 619
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Fri, 29 September 2006 21:36
ERPS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!


VOTE FOR ERPS

(I'm having T-shirts printed...)
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Sat, 30 September 2006 17:56
Hi

SKMorefield schrieb am Fri, 29 September 2006 21:36

ERPS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!


VOTE FOR ERPS

(I'm having T-shirts printed...)


That's a start!

You will be my campaign leader and later you are a wonderful ministry of defense Razz I think playing american armies is the only qualification you need for this office Wink

bye, erps
      
shamogi
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 259
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Sat, 30 September 2006 18:14
SKMorefield schrieb am Fri, 29 September 2006 21:36

ERPS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!

VOTE FOR ERPS




done ... vote here -->
http://www.shamogi.de/nc06/include.php?path=vote/archiv.php& amp;vid=4

Rolling Eyes
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 04 October 2006 11:40
Hi

I am very disappointed Sad
The prophet is not appreciated in the own country...

More english yes votes than german ja votes???
Okay, only a few oui votes from the french, i expected that Rolling Eyes

Come on, you can do better!!

Maybe i should offer more posts to other players, let's think:
Chief of intelligence: léachris
Minister of justice: thekid
Minister of finance: Wuonex (he know how to save money Smile
Minister of education: Mainpower aka Trolli aka ... (some of you remember Smile)
Minister of health: Peter de Zeeuw
Foreign minister: Youki (he is already most of the time ... away)
Environment minister: womble Smile
Minister without Portfolio: Mudda
Women's representative: Kotay

bye, erps
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Fri, 13 October 2006 14:33
Hi

Obviously the rule change happened without further questioning the captains as ThadD used the new formula in her results thread. Good! Smile

But i am sorry i have to ask some rule clarification again because in 2 weeks we have play offs...

The rules for choosing opp in QF:
Quote:

11-16: Round robin, 2 groups, with QF, SF and F. #1s choose opponent of other group in QF; cannot meet other #1 in SF, cannot meet best classified of own group in SF.


It seems it is clear that every number 1 can choose an opponent of the other group (but not the other number 1!).

And after this? Which team(s) are now the teams for choosing their opponent?

The best team overall (both groups)? The remaining best teams of both groups (that is not possible!)?

E.G.
We have A1-4 and B1-4 in the end.

A1 chooses B3, B1 chooses A2.

Now there are left A3, A4 and B2 and B4. Choosing for A3 and B2 is not possible because they have only ONE possible opp!

So i guess the QF are in this case A3-B4 and B2-A4?

My personal opinion to this method: Crap! With this method the both number 1 teams are not only choosing their opp, they decide the whole QF as THEY want, especially as the second choosing number 1 team wants (BTW who decides the choosing order??).

This is one of the rules for a "RULE BOARD" decision for next year. Only one fair solution: 1-4, 2-3 as in most sports...

But now it is to late, but we have to answer a few questions:

Which team chooses first?
And after the choosing of the number ones what happens?
And how is the pairing in semifinal?

bye, erps




      
Zeno
Senior Member
Cadet

Pages Perso
Messages: 582
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:rules clarification discussion Fri, 13 October 2006 16:53
never mind

[Mis à jour le: Fri, 13 October 2006 23:10]

      
dea1
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 2287
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Fri, 13 October 2006 20:29
earth calling erps ... earth calling erps ...
things are not that complicated after all

Sunday, Oct. 29th: end of round robin

Monday morning: official result available

Captains of the winning teams A1 and B1 submit their choice of opp (not the other #1) by PM to TD until Monday night

Tuesday morning: TD publishes who plays whom as follows
let's name the teams of each group
A1/B1: The group winners
Ac/Bc: The teams chosen ('c' Smile ) by the winner of the other group
Aa/Ba: The better ranked (result of round robin) not chosen team
Ab/Bb: The lower ranked not chosen team

Then this is the roster for the knockout

A1-Bc ----- Ab-Ba / Aa-Bb -------- Ac-B1

The group winners cannot meet in SF.
The group winners cannot meet their group's #2 in SF (Ab/Bb can be the 3rd or 4th ranked team but not the 2nd).

All automatic, simple and according to the rules

Wednesday evening: Lineup deadline as usual
Thursday morning: Lineups published, time for QF until Sunday, Nov 5th.
      
thadd
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2008

Messages: 253
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2004
Re:rules clarification discussion Fri, 13 October 2006 23:02
Thanks dea
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Sat, 14 October 2006 13:24
Hi

You didn't answer all questions, dea Smile

I understand this perfectly and i thought it would done in this way myself but i wanted to CLARIFY things because the rules are not clear in this point.

But now the last question: What is happening if one or both number ones are losing in quarterfinal?
Is the winning team now the "number one" for semifinal purpose or is the best remaining ranked team of the group the new number one?

Quarterfinals
A1-Bc ----- Ab-Ba
Aa-Bb -------- Ac-B1

Semifinals with A1 is losing
Bc can't met with B1? B1 can't met with Ba?

Semifinals with A1 AND B1 are losing?
I don't think the rules are clear in these cases?

bye, erps

      
dea1
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 2287
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Sun, 15 October 2006 20:19
erps schrieb am Sat, 14 October 2006 13:24


What is happening if one or both number ones are losing in quarterfinal?


Question Question Question
nothing special - the roster is followed

erps schrieb am Sat, 14 October 2006 13:24


Is the winning team now the "number one" for semifinal purpose or is the best remaining ranked team of the group the new number one?


neither


erps schrieb am Sat, 14 October 2006 13:24


I don't think the rules are clear in these cases?


I think they are Rolling Eyes

      
thekid
Senior Member
Vainqueur AdR European Map Championship 2010

Messages: 1054
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2004
Re:rules clarification discussion Tue, 17 October 2006 19:17
Which is the correct tiebreaker, this discussion turned into a foreign language one at the end there.

It's team wins, # of matches won, then what???

I see 2 numbers on shamogis and the result page. There's total games won and games differential. Which one is it?

Then lastly I know it's head to head.

Thanks.
      
RFAD - Saint-Emilion
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3792
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Tue, 17 October 2006 19:21
I'm interested also because in group B, they are many possibility of egality...

thx

P.S. : "my" ranking

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/2620/classementncj5ck3.jpg

[Mis à jour le: Tue, 17 October 2006 19:28]

      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Tue, 17 October 2006 19:38
Hi

As far as i am following this thread we have a 5 to 1 yes decision for RFADs counting (of course the matches won or matches difference are the same, it is only important with games).

captains yes
sebbo
skm
dea
masimo
RFAD for TEE?

captains no
Elric

ThadD changed it in her results thread so i think the game difference is the third tiebreaker and it makes really a big "difference" as we will see in last round...

The other captains had the time to react i even posted it in the german forum... both french teams gave a vote.

bye, erps
      
CAT-daedin
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2010

Pages Perso
Messages: 217
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Tue, 17 October 2006 21:52
Hi everybody,

For me is a little difficult to answer it, because it´s clear two rounds before finish the championship, that for us the initial tiebreaker is better.

Anyway is also clear for me that the difference is a more logical tiebreak, but the question is if the tiebreak of the total victory games is a mistake (in this case i think we have to change it) or just is a not so good tiebreak (in this case we shouldn´t change, because is more important don´t break the rules that improve this, when this is againts or a favour of some teams)

So, for me is a difficult question of concept, i have been thinking about it and i´m not sure about the answer. The only think that i want to tell is that we have to be very sure about a tiebreak is a mistake before change it two rounds before finish the championship.

Anyway, i think that the TD is a difficult task, and i don´t want to put more pressure in his job, we are here only for fun, never dream to pass to quarts before start, so I don´t want to have problem with anybody for this question. I only want to put my reflexion, if most of captains don´t change his point of view, it´s clear what most of people think, and we, of course, will accept this,

Regards everybody (and sorry for my poor english)

Daedin.
      
ElSoyokaze
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 286
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2003
Re:rules clarification discussion Tue, 17 October 2006 22:35
Consider me in agreement. The system seems fair and accurate.

--ElSoy
      
thekid
Senior Member
Vainqueur AdR European Map Championship 2010

Messages: 1054
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2004
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 00:46
I'll offer up another very fair solution as to now vote, people could be conflicted. If the teams are tied at match wins, instead of any other tiebreak, we have a one week off period so its simple:

Send in a 5 person lineup. 1 game, instead of best of 5. Whichever team wins 3 advances.

There could be a 3 way tie, so you play both teams and highest amount of wins advances.

Next year it would probably better to have the win differential be the tiebreaker or actually I would prefer this sudden death type format.

Whatever you guys want just thought this was a good alternative.
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 09:41
Hi

This discussion was started 4 weeks ago!! In my opinion there was enough time to vote for the old or the new system.

I can live with kid's solution of an extra tiebreak game but i would consider first the direct clash between the teams as first tiebreaker (was my proposal from the beginning).

But i can't accept the old solution. Sorry, i like the spanish team, but look at RFADs table above. It CAN'T BE that a team with 47:57 is considered as good as a team with 47:44 (!!!). That is a difference of ten lost games... You can call this as you want but it is not fair and no one in any sports would do such a weird system!

This is the last used system from TD:
1. Tiebreaker: Clashes won
2. Tiebreaker: Matches won / Matches difference
3. Tiebreaker: Games difference
4. Tiebreaker: Games won (in case the difference is equal of course now the games won is more worth).
5. Tiebreaker: Direct Clash (in case of three or more teams equal next tiebreakers are number 2-4)
6. Tiebreaker: Coin toss

ElSoy, it's nice to post an agreement... But for which system??? Surprised

Let the TD decide based on the captain's votes. ThadD, where are you?????

bye, erps
      
SMP-bassie
Senior Member

Messages: 491
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 11:04
As everyone might have noticed, I seldom take time to read the forum. Now some rule clarification is necessary, I think it wise if I, being the writer of the rules discussed above, throw in my .02, even when I'm some weeks behind.

Q1. What is the 3rd tiebreaker? Number of games won or difference in games?

A1. A flaw in the rules indeed, as noticed by some of you. I simply took the rules from last year on this point, but that would be unrealistic. A team with 9-5 in games did better than a team with 10-8. To be precise, taking the exact order as erps described earlier this morning is what I had in mind. I think it would be common sense to apply this. Thanks RFAD, erps, and others for noticing this. I don't feel like pushing some extra decision games in at this stage.

Q2. How do the two "other" QFs look? And how does the KO continue?

A2. Indeed, this wasn't perfectly clear. But I fully agree with dea, that is the way it was meant. Since the dates are not fully clarified yet I will hereby give a full proposal (times same as usual):

- Captains of number 1 teams send the name of their preferred opponent to TD (Monday, 30th of Oct);
- TD posts full KO roster within 12 hours;
- All QF captains send their lineup to TD (Tuesday, 31st of Oct);
- TD posts playing schedule within 12 hours;
- Matches can be played till Tuesday, 7th of Nov;
- All SF captains send their lineup to TD (Wednesday, 8th of Nov);
- TD posts playing schedule within 12 hours;
- Matches can be played till Wednesday, 15th of Nov;
- Captains of teams which play the final send their lineup to TD (Thursday, 16th of Nov);
- All matches of the final are played in the weekend of the 17th-19th of Nov.

Not so sure if this is planable. What do you think, captains and TD?

I have some other thoughts on NC. Before NC ends, I will share them with you in this forum and after that we can decide how we organise it in the future.

cu, bas

      
player 577453
Member

Messages: 54
Enregistré(e) en :
April 2006
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 11:47
I would like to say bassie's clarification of the rules makes the most sense,as a non player i have no vested interest in tie breaker rules,other than seeing the best teams make it throu to QF's and not taking match difference into account would be a mistake.Of course this is just my opinion (not a official ruling)
As to planning timing of schedules 12 hrs might be a bit tight for me to do (time differnce down here and work commitments),but 18-24hrs is definately do-able on my part Smile
If the captains can get the line ups in on those dates specified i can post the schedules.
regards spudamon
      
CAT-daedin
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2010

Pages Perso
Messages: 217
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 14:12
I'm absolutely agree with bassie and erps, of course the difference is a better system, in next competition we should use it.

But, the key point of the question is not which system is better, but if we can change a tiebreak system when we now which teams will gain with this and which one will lose for it.

Go to a extrem, imagine first round finished, team A 48 victory and 47 defeat. Team B 47 victory and 45 defeat. For the initial tiebreak team A go to the next round, but somebody says that is not fair, that team B deserves go to the next round because he has more difference of games, a more fair system. Do you also think in this case that we must change the rules, and say to the team A, sorry, we have think it better and we change the rules, and you are out. Really???

So, if the vic/def for A is 48/60 and for B 47/40, then it is fair?

So that is a extrem situation, is clear, but if this is a round before, but we know that team A have good possibilites with one system and not with the other, then is fair to change the system?

And if is 2 rounds before? then yes?

I like you see it so clear... for me is a bit more complex.

The proposition of the kid, of play a 1 game more, seems to me a good solution,in the case one team pass if we apply one tiebreak, and the other pass if we apply the other one.

Anyway I will like a offical pronuciation, so we know when we finish last round who pass to the other one.
      
SKMorefield
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 619
Enregistré(e) en :
January 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 15:06
daedin wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 08:12

The proposition of the kid, of play a 1 game more, seems to me a good solution,in the case one team pass if we apply one tiebreak, and the other pass if we apply the other one.




I think this is fair.

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 18 October 2006 15:06]

      
thadd
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2008

Messages: 253
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2004
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 16:56
erps wrote on Wed, 18 October 2006 02:41

Hi


Let the TD decide based on the captain's votes. ThadD, where are you?????



Just give me a break erps (I am at work), I will post the final decision tonight.
I will discuss with spud the tiebreaker.

The schedule is clear for the QF, we will just do it as bassie wrote (I think it's the same as dea's proposition - I will check also tonight).

thanks for your patience,

thad

P.S. I got remarks that the board in the resultthread is 'zig-zag', I am sorry about this, the layout appears fine to me.

      
dea1
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 2287
Enregistré(e) en :
September 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 19:58
bassie schrieb am Wed, 18 October 2006 11:04


- All QF captains send their lineup to TD (Tuesday, 31st of Oct);
- TD posts playing schedule within 12 hours;
- Matches can be played till Tuesday, 7th of Nov;
- All SF captains send their lineup to TD (Wednesday, 8th of Nov);
- TD posts playing schedule within 12 hours;
- Matches can be played till Wednesday, 15th of Nov;
- Captains of teams which play the final send their lineup to TD (Thursday, 16th of Nov);
- All matches of the final are played in the weekend of the 17th-19th of Nov.

Not so sure if this is planable. What do you think, captains and TD?



Please give us a little more time to do the lineup, especially for QF.
If we get the roster on Tuesday morning it may not be possible to send a lineup Tuesday evening - what if you have to work longer that day, have an appointment in the evening, can't get hold of important team members you want to ask ...
I think Wednesday evening should be the first deadline.

Best regards
dea
      
Elric - Sancerre
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2013

Pages Perso
Messages: 1880
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 22:52
Hello dear buddies (especially erps... yes, you, our future President Love Very Happy )

Seriously :

1) Only the idiots don't change their mind Rolling Eyes Laughing

Between the 2 following sentences, we have a dilemma :
A- Keep the less good rule... not fair, regardings the best rule !
B- Change for the best rule (erps's one of course)... but just before the last round, when we can already imagine which teams can benefit for it, or not... not fair regardings the Tournament's spirit !

So I agree with deadin's idea... we keep the 2 rules, and if there is a ranking difference at the end between the 2, we'll have a tiebreak clash between the teams involved... but I'm not sure that kid's idea (1 game by 5 players) is the best... I believe we have something in the rules for that... a tiebreak between 2 players in best-of-3 (or 5 ?)... maybe, better...

2) I also agree with Dea... I think Tuesday evening is really too short to give the lineups for the QF.
Just a little notice : wasn't it envisaged a break week at the end of the Round Robin (like last year) ?

3) Thanks bassie, dear creator ( Very Happy ), for your intervention... and thanks in advance to Thadd for her good decisions about all of that Thumbs Up

Only my .02 Wink

Elric.
"Red TGV" Captain.

PS @ erps : you can forget now the stars in your posts when you answer to me. Thanks Smile

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 18 October 2006 22:55]

      
RFAD - Saint-Emilion
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 3792
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2005
Re:rules clarification discussion Wed, 18 October 2006 23:39
tie break, tie break.... and if they are 4 temas egality ?


+ Austria lose vs Red TGV and vs Homeland Security
or
+ Red TGV lose vs Austria and OLE

+ Catalunya win versus PES and DoW
+ Homeland Security win versus Dow and Austria
+ White TGV win versus OLE and PES

------------------------------------------

= Austria (or Red TGV), Homeland Security and Cataluny : 4 W ans 3 L


and in this case, do we make a tournament during 3 weeks and the other teams have to wait ??? Rolling Eyes

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 18 October 2006 23:40]

      
Pages (2): [1  2  >  » ]     
Sujet précédent:Who wants to be our opponent in QF?
Sujet suivant:TTR Duplicate : a mode to minimize hasard
Aller au forum: