Winter World Cup WINNER - poweewee (Philippines)

[Gf!sh]

(01-31-2013 01:26 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  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 long, making a long tournament even longer.

There's a mathematical fail in this dude. Since an elimination format follows the amount of competitors in a logarithmic scale, doubling the size of it only adds one round.

[connor34911]

(01-28-2013 03:31 PM)Clover Wrote:  

Quote:Still can start one man

Connor, your slots are full too :\

Hey can you request me, my slots are definitely open. Thanks.

[GreatGonzales]

(01-31-2013 01:33 AM)Gfich Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 01:26 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  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 long, making a long tournament even longer.

There's a mathematical fail in this dude. Since an elimination format follows the amount of competitors in a logarithmic scale, doubling the size of it only adds one round.

Oh, yes, I understand that. Sorry, there was a fail there, but it was a language fail, not mathematical. I'll change it.

[awpertunity]

Well it seems that general consensus (consensus of 4 people anyway) would prefer top 2 of each group to advance, which I understand and I definitely wanted originally. As GG pointed out the reason I didn't do option 2 in the end is exactly what he said there.

A big motivator for everything I decided in the end was the issue of time, we wanted this tournament done by late May. I'll see if I can think of a good way to incorporate top 2 of each group though... What I'm scared of with the 32-person bracket is really the time issue. When it gets to that point the games take a lot longer for two reasons. Firstly because the games are a lot tougher, but also secondly the games are worth a lot more, so people take more time to make their moves. Consider the Super-Duper-Titan Tournament, this was a 16 person tournament that started God knows when and it's still in its second round. This cannot happen with this tournament.

[GreatGonzales]

(01-31-2013 04:38 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  Well it seems that general consensus (consensus of 4 people anyway) would prefer top 2 of each group to advance, which I understand and I definitely wanted originally. As GG pointed out the reason I didn't do option 2 in the end is exactly what he said there.

A big motivator for everything I decided in the end was the issue of time, we wanted this tournament done by late May. I'll see if I can think of a good way to incorporate top 2 of each group though... What I'm scared of with the 32-person bracket is really the time issue. When it gets to that point the games take a lot longer for two reasons. Firstly because the games are a lot tougher, but also secondly the games are worth a lot more, so people take more time to make their moves. Consider the Super-Duper-Titan Tournament, this was a 16 person tournament that started God knows when and it's still in its second round. This cannot happen with this tournament.

I think the main problem with the Super-Duper-Titan tournament was that it was an invite-only. And invariably, people got invited who weren't really "tournament people". Also, there were no time restrictions in that tournament, which you could apply here.

The more I think about it, the more I think option 3 is the way to go. Yes it will be a longer tournament, for two reasons: 1. Twice as many pools, and 2. An extra round in the elimination bracket. But what you gain from this change, I think, outweighs that cost; namely the added inclusiveness and therefore legitimacy for this important tournament.

---

Another option might be to analyse every replay from the first round of pools to extract the number of turns for every player, and use that data to inform seeding into a direct elimination bracket, therefore skipping the second round of pools altogether. But that might be crazy talk.

[GreatGonzales]

Another bonus to having 2 players graduate from each pool, if you are doing another round of pools: You are able to seed the pools more fairly. 2 #1s and 2 #2s in every pool.

Ok I'll shut up. I feel like I always do this to tournament managers...give too much advice. >.>

[harvarnold]

FTheo and KAnderson37 haven't started their games. I'm going to start a game to let them know.

[Norahsul]

I can't wait to see the results and replays of your games so I can learn both of your strategies!!

(01-30-2013 06:32 PM)mx666 Wrote:  

(01-30-2013 09:01 AM)Hifimatlock Wrote:  Group 26 - carlesba hasn't started a game with me yet.

I must say, the results thus far on the file are very interesting. I suspect we may have a 3 way tie in one of the groups.

Have you lost to some1?

[CombatEX]

You could enforce a 1 day per turn policy though it would be better to avoid that if possible. Your (awpertunity) comment regarding games being worth more though isn't quite accurate because as we see here, every game is extremely critical. Even 1 loss in qualifying can knock you out of the tournament (unless you implement GG's suggestion, and if so, probably the third one is the best). I also want this tournament to end in a timely matter because if nothing else I'd rather it not run into the qualifying (open qualifier) for GOL 2013. However, with the 2 day per turn enforcement, and perhaps 1 day per turn, I don't think it's as much of a problem.

[Jakeyboy20]

P1: 105. Jakeyboy20
P2: 216. Tuck's Bugs
Long 9
Jakeyboy20
outwitters://viewgame?id=ag5vdXR3aXR0ZXJzZ2FtZXIRCxIIR2FtZVJvb20YloXQAgw

P1: 88. Dark Falkai
P2: 105. Jakeyboy20
Foundry
Jakeyboy20
outwitters://viewgame?id=ag5vdXR3aXR0ZXJzZ2FtZXIRCxIIR2FtZVJvb20Y6ezTAgw

And then there is the one with StratZ-