Winter World Cup WINNER - poweewee (Philippines)

awpertunity · 01-30-2013, 09:28 PM

(01-30-2013 02:26 PM)GreatGonzales Wrote: Something to consider awpertunity - you could take the top 2 from every pool which gives you 64 players. Then you could do a variety of things:

Option 1: 8 pools of 8 with the top 2 from each pool advancing to a 16 person elimination bracket
Option 2: 16 pools of 4 with the top 1 from each pool advancing to a 16 person elimination bracket
Option 3: 16 pools of 4 with the top 2 from each pool advancing to a 32 person elimination bracket

But. I dunno if any of these are better than your current plan. It's a question of where in the process you want to be strict about entry...and whether you are willing to have people play 14 matches simultaneously (in the case of 8 person pools..).

I had been going back and forth between the current setup and Option 2 before the tournament started and I saw the number of signups. Unfortunately at this point I think it's too late to switch it. I know people have already been messing around and I believe even Szei has dropped out once they realized they could no longer advance with the current setup...

mx666 · 01-30-2013, 10:13 PM

(01-30-2013 02:26 PM)GreatGonzales Wrote: Something to consider awpertunity - you could take the top 2 from every pool which gives you 64 players. Then you could do a variety of things:

Option 1: 8 pools of 8 with the top 2 from each pool advancing to a 16 person elimination bracket
Option 2: 16 pools of 4 with the top 1 from each pool advancing to a 16 person elimination bracket
Option 3: 16 pools of 4 with the top 2 from each pool advancing to a 32 person elimination bracket

But. I dunno if any of these are better than your current plan. It's a question of where in the process you want to be strict about entry...and whether you are willing to have people play 14 matches simultaneously (in the case of 8 person pools..).

Some of the best ideas!

**Harti** · 01-30-2013, 10:36 PM

I just checked the charts and I do agree that it's a bit rough to only let the group winner proceed (no bias - I'm saying that as a 5-0) because then you could as well have made a Super-Titan only tournament with 64 entries (I do realize there are non-STs to win their group currently but you get my point, right?).

Granted, it's a little late to decide on that as the group stage is progressing but it is something you could consider. Having more groups doesn't mean the tourney will take much longer; it's merely one more KO stage, I guess, and it leaves better chances for Gifted players who really deserve a spot in such an important tourney provided they're doing well!

lawtai · 01-30-2013, 11:28 PM

bump?

Gf!sh · 01-30-2013, 11:45 PM

(01-30-2013 10:36 PM)Harti Wrote: I just checked the charts and I do agree that it's a bit rough to only let the group winner proceed (no bias - I'm saying that as a 5-0) because then you could as well have made a Super-Titan only tournament with 64 entries (I do realize there are non-STs to win their group currently but you get my point, right?).

Granted, it's a little late to decide on that as the group stage is progressing but it is something you could consider. Having more groups doesn't mean the tourney will take much longer; it's merely one more KO stage, I guess, and it leaves better chances for Gifted players who really deserve a spot in such an important tourney provided they're doing well!

How's your game with spoboyle going?

StratZ- · 01-31-2013, 12:26 AM

So what happens if some of these p1 guys don't start the game? Because I think there's 2 guys I'm supposed to play that haven't started a game with me

**Harti** · 01-31-2013, 12:34 AM

(01-30-2013 11:45 PM)Gfich Wrote: How's your game with spoboyle going?

It is completely undecided, him playing Adorables against my Feedback. We both got a Special and a bunch of units out, it's turn 31 -- his.

Your question implies that you'd like to point out that, if I lost and spoboyle KO'd the round, I'd end up being group's runner-up and spoboyle's first, am I right? That again implies that I was posting the above on my own behalf, trying to push myself to the actual tournament's group stage.
Just in case you're indeed saying that I would like to point out that this is false, I just thought about it half an hour ago when somebody else has pointed that out to me.
To be frank, I even wanted to concede the game to spoboyle for playing so well yesterday in order to give him a chance to advance as well. That is: I had no clue that I wasn't yet safely proceeding to the tournament's next stage. Firstly, I thought it was two people advancing, and secondly I didn't even consider that spoboyle could 6-0 my group.

Now that I am aware, retrospectively, it's indeed kind of awkward for me to have asked for the runner-up to proceed as well because it fairly looks like I'm doing it because of me, but I swear to God that the post before was completely unbiased. I wanted spoboyle to advance in case they lose.

It is really a mystery to me why only one out of 7 people is proceeding to the next stage. Sure, 6-0 is excellent, but isn't 5-1 just as great? This is a qualifier and I've never seen a round-robin qualifier to be this harsh and eliminate all but the winner. O_o

I agree that I should have read the spreadsheet beforehand and should have raised my concerns before the group started or at least before I started my games.
Had I known all that I might have taken my games more seriously and, above all, wouldn't have put the game against spoboyle on stake so easily.

Gf!sh · 01-31-2013, 01:09 AM

(01-31-2013 12:34 AM)Harti Wrote:
(01-30-2013 11:45 PM)Gfich Wrote: How's your game with spoboyle going?
It is completely undecided, him playing Adorables against my Feedback. We both got a Special and a bunch of units out, it's turn 31 -- his.

Your question implies that you'd like to point out that, if I lost and spoboyle KO'd the round, I'd end up being group's runner-up and spoboyle's first, am I right? That again implies that I was posting the above on my own behalf, trying to push myself to the actual tournament's group stage.
Just in case you're indeed saying that I would like to point out that this is false, I just thought about it half an hour ago when somebody else has pointed that out to me.
To be frank, I even wanted to concede the game to spoboyle for playing so well yesterday in order to give him a chance to advance as well. That is: I had no clue that I wasn't yet safely proceeding to the tournament's next stage. Firstly, I thought it was two people advancing, and secondly I didn't even consider that spoboyle could 6-0 my group.

Actually not at all. It's part of my uber-optimistic scenario in which spoboyle beats you, I beat him, and both of us would go 5-1, to make a total 3-way tie, which would at least give me a rematch against you, hopefully as P1, in which I would pick Long Nine and pwn both you and spoboyle.

(01-31-2013 12:34 AM)Harti Wrote: Now that I am aware, retrospectively, it's indeed kind of awkward for me to have asked for the runner-up to proceed as well because it fairly looks like I'm doing it because of me, but I swear to God that the post before was completely unbiased. I wanted spoboyle to advance in case they lose.

But then there would still be the possibility that I beat spoboyle, placing me above him.

(01-31-2013 12:34 AM)Harti Wrote: It is really a mystery to me why only one out of 7 people is proceeding to the next stage. Sure, 6-0 is excellent, but isn't 5-1 just as great? This is a qualifier and I've never seen a round-robin qualifier to be this harsh and eliminate all but the winner. O_o

I agree it's very harsh. It's so awkward knowing that the chances of survival are so minimal.

(01-31-2013 12:34 AM)Harti Wrote: I agree that I should have read the spreadsheet beforehand and should have raised my concerns before the group started or at least before I started my games.
Had I known all that I might have taken my games more seriously and, above all, wouldn't have put the game against spoboyle on stake so easily.

Wait, WHAT?!

mx666 · 01-31-2013, 01:12 AM

(01-31-2013 12:34 AM)Harti Wrote:
(01-30-2013 11:45 PM)Gfich Wrote: How's your game with spoboyle going?
It is really a mystery to me why only one out of 7 people is proceeding to the next stage. Sure, 6-0 is excellent, but isn't 5-1 just as great? This is a qualifier and I've never seen a round-robin qualifier to be this harsh and eliminate all but the winner. O_o

Agree Harti, it is bit radical and 2 out of group would make it so much less punishing and so much more rewarding.

GreatGonzales · (This post was last modified: 01-31-2013 01:46 AM by GreatGonzales.)

I feel I should chime in again. I agree that it sucks for there to be only 1 person out of each pool graduating to the next stage of the tournament. But if you look at awpertunty's alternatives as far as format goes, they're not great either. I'll list them here, again:

Option 1: 8 pools of 8 with the top 2 from each pool advancing to a 16 person elimination bracket
-- Problem: with current pool format of every player playing every other player twice, that means 14 matches simultaneously, which is a gruelling number of games even for the most active of players

Option 2: 16 pools of 4 with the top 1 from each pool advancing to a 16 person elimination bracket
-- Problem: As with the current proposal to take the top 1 from the first pool, taking the top 1 from the second round of pools would be, I think, even more devastating. Consider the calibur of players being eliminated in the second round, if only the top 1 advances. Also consider that Awpertunity is going to base this on number of turns, which is an imprecise measure of skill. This would make it even more painful for people to eliminated next round, if there is a hotly contested number 1 spot. Also, consider that awpertunity does not have a good way of fairly placing people in pools, and it could be that there are two excellent players in the same pool.

Option 3: 16 pools of 4 with the top 2 from each pool advancing to a 32 person elimination bracket
-- Problem: The elimination bracket is twice as large, making a long tournament even longer. Though, as Gfich helpfully reminded us, this means that there is only "1 round" more of extra duration. In my experience, the more people in a round, the longer it takes, since you can only progress as quickly as your slowest player, and there would be double the number of players. So there would be a significant, if not enormous duration increase to the elimination bracket.

Hmm, actually awpertunity, why not go with option 3? Weighing the pros and cons of all options, including the current plan, I feel like option 3 above might be the best, and fairest, way to go. What do you think?