Outwitters WORLD CUP Winner - Alvendor (SWEDEN)

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 10-10-2012 03:34 AM by CombatEX.)

Yes, I agree that this worked well in group stages, but doesn't really make sense in knockout stages. Giving the win to the player who rushes isn't an indication of skill. It's okay in group stages because that tiebreaker doesn't come into play as often. In knockout stages however I imagine the tiebreaker will be used heavily. This doesn't equal skill. A player could play a slower style and win 90% of their games compared to a player who does a lot of rushes but wins 60% of their games. The former player is definitely better, but would almost assuredly lose early on in the knockout rounds of this tournament. Please consider Samura|'s suggestion.

It is a good compromise between GreatGonzales' tiebreaker and the World Cup's tiebreaker.

(10-09-2012 09:50 PM)Samura| Wrote: As a suggestion: perhaps we could make it so that you need to win BOTH games to progress. With a draw, the player who won his game in fewer turns will be P1 in the next game, but the other player can choose the map? This would at least maintain the integrity of both games. And winning your game faster gives you the first turn advantage, but you still have to win 2 out of 3 games.

I strongly suggest we take this approach lest the results of this tournament are rather marginalized (who is the best rusher instead of who is the best player?).

Szei · (This post was last modified: 10-10-2012 03:35 AM by Szei.)

This forum bug is really bizarre. This time two posts didn't display until I posted =/

(10-10-2012 12:05 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:
(10-09-2012 09:50 PM)Samura| Wrote: As a suggestion: perhaps we could make it so that you need to win BOTH games to progress. With a draw, the player who won his game in fewer turns will be P1 in the next game, but the other player can choose the map? This would at least maintain the integrity of both games. And winning your game faster gives you the first turn advantage, but you still have to win 2 out of 3 games.

I like this idea. Except that Awpertunity has already selected maps for the rest of the tournament. Perhaps we would just award P1 to the person with less turns, and leave it at that.

I feel if we simply "leave it at that" it would be harmful to the success of the tournament. If the issue is the awpertunity has already chosen the maps (which shouldn't really be a problem), the third match could just be played on the map selected for the round (i.e. tiebreaker match for this round played on Peekaboo). It's better than nothing.

Ravernoth · (This post was last modified: 10-10-2012 03:50 AM by Ravernoth.)

(10-10-2012 03:33 AM)Szei Wrote: I feel if we simply "leave it at that" it would be harmful to the success of the tournament. If the issue is the awpertunity has already chosen the maps (which shouldn't really be a problem), the third match could just be played on the map selected for the round (i.e. tiebreaker match for this round played on Peekaboo). It's better than nothing.

I think that's what GreatGonzales was suggesting. We can either let P2 select a map, or just keep the same map. I think letting P2 select a map is nice to at least minimally help with FTA, but there's no issue either way.

Either way, it gives both players the opportunity to earn their victory with 2 wins, and winning in fewer turns still earns you something.

GreatGonzales · 10-10-2012, 03:57 AM

Actually, I don't think the tiebreaker would be on the same map of the round. See here:

(08-30-2012 10:11 AM)awpertunity Wrote: If there is amazingly still a tie after this, another match (2 more games) will be played on the map of the previous round in the tournament. (The map "before" the RO 16 will be Foundry).

But yeah, I think what everyone is saying seems like the best thing to do... Give P1 to the person with less overall turns, and use Awpertunity's pre-selected maps.

Thrutchy · 10-10-2012, 04:28 AM

I think the current tie-breaker (# turns) has an effect on game play. I lost my P2 game in 21 turns. Because of the tie-breaker and my loss after 21 turns, I attacked (and failed) in my P1 game sooner than probably would otherwise. It still may be an interesting game, but I think winning in fewer turns is likely not possible.

It think it is too late to change tie-breaking for this round since game-play is effected. A change like Samura suggested may be good for the next round, though.

Probably any tie-breaker that is based on something in the game other than a win is going to have an effect on gameplay. Samura's suggestion still favors the rusher since they become P1 for the tie-breaking game. For the next tournament, I think tie-breaking should be avoided until the very end (instead of occuring on each round).

awpertunity · (This post was last modified: 10-10-2012 05:53 AM by awpertunity.)

(10-09-2012 09:50 PM)Samura| Wrote: As a suggestion: perhaps we could make it so that you need to win BOTH games to progress. With a draw, the player who won his game in fewer turns will be P1 in the next game, but the other player can choose the map? This would at least maintain the integrity of both games. And winning your game faster gives you the first turn advantage, but you still have to win 2 out of 3 games.

Would like to hear what everyone else thinks...

That's a great idea. You should have brought it up earlier! Smile

As you say, it's too late to implement for the RO16 since the standing rule has already affected the games there, but I will happily implement it moving forward.

Okay, I have updated the original post to explain the new rules of the Elimination Round for the Quarterfinals onwards.

In the case of a tie, a third game will be played with P1 as the player who won his game in less turns and P2 may choose the map. If the number of turns is the same, it will be the player with higher base health. If these are both the same, then another match will be played on the previous round map as before.

Samura| · 10-10-2012, 05:54 PM

@awpertunity: Perfect!

@Thrutchy: by the next tourney, hopefully the magnitude of the FTA will have been fixed (e.g. P2 with 8 wit). This would mean any player winning in fewer turns has much less of an advantage - we could then possibly let the player with the quicker victory have the choice of whether to a) choose the map or b) choose to start as P1 or P2... it's possible the choice of map might be preferable to some.

Thrutchy · 10-11-2012, 12:02 AM

I like the idea of a Swiss tournament that the lower league tournament is using. Tie breaking is not needed or only at the very end between top contenders. That system is used with chess.

Ravernoth · 10-11-2012, 01:09 AM

(10-11-2012 12:02 AM)Thrutchy Wrote: I like the idea of a Swiss tournament that the lower league tournament is using. Tie breaking is not needed or only at the very end between top contenders. That system is used with chess.

That system sounds good too, but I think this World Cup format is great - with the group stages and then the exciting knockout stage. With the 3 game tiebreaker, and the FTA fix coming soon, I don't see any reason to change it.

Eijolend · 10-11-2012, 02:30 AM

Yeah the group stages work really really well with the current system and groups are great when so many players are involved. It's just the Elimination part that needs to be discussed.