Outwitters WORLD CUP Winner - Alvendor (SWEDEN)

[Ravernoth]

Awpertunity, I was thinking that it might be good when you post about the start of the knockout stage, to make an official request - not a rule, just something like "It would be great if after matches when you post replays, you could share some thoughts on the match."

I'm sure we'd all enjoy that, and it would be cool for the rest of us to be able to read a bit more about how the match went from the players' perspectives, and get some discussion going.

[CombatEX]

(09-27-2012 08:08 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  I was just following the actual World Cup rules

The ranking of each team in each group will be determined as follows:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.


I left out c) though because of exactly what you say.

Ah. Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't aware of the specifics of the tiebreakers in the World Cup.

Quote:It's funny though, apparently this exact point you brought up is an ongoing debate by World Cup spectators and I didn't even know about it.

"This all seems well and good, but personally I’d like to see more weight given to head-to-head results. If two teams finish with the same number of points but one team has beaten the other, I think the winning team deserves to go through. It should be as simple as that."

It's interesting that this has been brought up there too. I suppose extending that to Outwitters it would indeed be odd if a player lost to another in head to head but had 1 or 2 higher point differential and advanced as a result. That's not too likely to happen though especially now that most of the group results have been finalized.

Quote:But you are definitely right in that goals in soccer are actually more true to the differential scale than the arbitrary point system we are using here.

Yea, that's why I found it odd but thanks to your response I now see why you made the tiebreakers this way =)

[Samura|]

(08-30-2012 10:11 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  The PF awarded will be as follows:
SMALL MAPS (1 wit space each)
+4 points for 12 turns or less
+3 points for 28 turns or less
+2 points for 48 turns or less
+1 point for 49 turns or more

LARGE MAPS (2 wit spaces each)
+4 points for 14 turns or less
+3 points for 32 turns or less
+2 points for 56 turns or less
+1 point for 57 turns or more

Have some suggestions regarding the allocation of points based on turns, for future reference. My initial thought was that smaller maps don't necessarily mean quicker games, as personally I think larger maps offer much more varied attacking options as it's more difficult to fully defend attacks from different sides. Plus it's easier to catch your opponent by surprise. I feel that some small maps like Sharkfood Island seem to lead to quicker games, but Peekaboo is a map which allows more defensive play.

Now that we're almost done with the group stages and therefore have some data, I've done some analysis based on the games that have been completed (about 15-16 games for each map):

Turns to win:

Map : Mean / Median

Small maps: 25.4 / 23.0
Large maps: 25.7 / 21.5

Glitch: 23.8 /18.0
Peekaboo: 30.5 / 30.0
Sharkfood: 21.8 / 20.0

Foundry: 22.7 / 17.0
Sweetie Plains: 33.1 / 28.0
Long Nine: 21.3 / 17.0

Perhaps the sample size isn't very large, but the findings would seem to confirm my suspicions and make logical sense. Namely that there's no material difference in the turns to win between small and large maps. Rather it would appear that most maps are equal, EXCEPT for Sweetie Plains and Peekaboo where games are noticeably longer, therefore if anything we should allocate points on the basis of the 4 other maps vs Sweetie Plains + Peekaboo. We could of course do further analysis about standard deviations for turns to win etc, to determine how to allocate points say for each fixed increment of standard deviation vs the mean.

Not sure if anyone has been affected by this in the current tournament, but these are little improvements we can make for the next tournament.

[awpertunity]

(09-27-2012 06:54 PM)Samura| Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 10:11 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  The PF awarded will be as follows:
SMALL MAPS (1 wit space each)
+4 points for 12 turns or less
+3 points for 28 turns or less
+2 points for 48 turns or less
+1 point for 49 turns or more

LARGE MAPS (2 wit spaces each)
+4 points for 14 turns or less
+3 points for 32 turns or less
+2 points for 56 turns or less
+1 point for 57 turns or more

Have some suggestions regarding the allocation of points based on turns, for future reference. My initial thought was that smaller maps don't necessarily mean quicker games, as personally I think larger maps offer much more varied attacking options as it's more difficult to fully defend attacks from different sides. Plus it's easier to catch your opponent by surprise. I feel that some small maps like Sharkfood Island seem to lead to quicker games, but Peekaboo is a map which allows more defensive play.

Now that we're almost done with the group stages and therefore have some data, I've done some analysis based on the games that have been completed (about 15-16 games for each map):

Turns to win:

Map : Mean / Median

Small maps: 25.4 / 23.0
Large maps: 25.7 / 21.5

Glitch: 23.8 /18.0
Peekaboo: 30.5 / 30.0
Sharkfood: 21.8 / 20.0

Foundry: 22.7 / 17.0
Sweetie Plains: 33.1 / 28.0
Long Nine: 21.3 / 17.0

Perhaps the sample size isn't very large, but the findings would seem to confirm my suspicions and make logical sense. Namely that there's no material difference in the turns to win between small and large maps. Rather it would appear that most maps are equal, EXCEPT for Sweetie Plains and Peekaboo where games are noticeably longer, therefore if anything we should allocate points on the basis of the 4 other maps vs Sweetie Plains + Peekaboo. We could of course do further analysis about standard deviations for turns to win etc, to determine how to allocate points say for each fixed increment of standard deviation vs the mean.

Not sure if anyone has been affected by this in the current tournament, but these are little improvements we can make for the next tournament.

Yes this is definitely a valid point. Ideally we would have a different scale for every single map based on a lot of data. I definitely thought about it while I was posting that (namely I assumed that Long 9 would have relatively short games even though it is a "large" map, and as your results show my suspicions were right as well), but ended up just keeping it simple. It is definitely late to retroactively do anything about it now but we can definitely keep this line of thought in mind for future tournaments.

[Thrutchy]

Sweetie plains
Thrutchy vs alvendor
Alvendor
47 turns (gave up)
Replay

[Szei]

Only one game left besides mine. =O

To keep everyone updated the current turn counts for my final 3 games are at:

Foundry: 18
Peekaboo: 13 (about to take my turn here)
Long Nine: 14

EDIT:

Games now at:

Foundry: 24
Peekaboo: 18
Long Nine: 14

[awpertunity]

(09-27-2012 11:43 PM)Thrutchy Wrote:  Sweetie plains
Thrutchy vs alvendor
Alvendor
47 turns (gave up)
Replay

Geez your name was such a pain to put into the brackets properly lol. Who knew a carrot would be so difficult:

"{$\mathbin{\char`\^}$ thrutchy $\mathbin{\char`\^}$}"

[Szei]

Still can't add a new post. Anyway,

all matches have been completed


Foundry
P1 Szei
P2 p1noyboypj
Szei
25 turns
Replay

Long Nine
P1 Szei
P2 ukiyulee
Szei
37 turns
Replay

Peekaboo
P1 Szei
P2 Da Wizerd
Szei
35 turns
Replay


all matches have been completed

[GreatGonzales]

See, even p1noyboypj can't win as P2 on Foundry.

[CombatEX]

Hey GreatGonzales, how is your game vs Furrysox going? What turn are you guys on if you don't mind saying?