Outwitters WORLD CUP Winner - Alvendor (SWEDEN)

awpertunity · (This post was last modified: 09-01-2012 10:01 PM by awpertunity.)

(09-01-2012 07:21 PM)Ravernoth Wrote: Base health isn't a very good indicator as it can be a long dragout fight with the loser having a heavy and soldier 1 turn away from winning.

How does this help the winner? If the winner keeps his opponent's base health at 1 HP? It's the winner's base health that determines the points, and the winner cannot heal his base so dragging the game on can only hurt.

(09-01-2012 08:03 PM)Necrocat219 Wrote: So... if I win the first game with 5 base health, then I spawn a lot of runners and aim to just do 1 damage to the opponent base, I automatically win the second game as soon as I damage the opponent base? This doesn't seem like a better tiebreak than a third game to me. :/

Sure, if you win the game fast enough? The point is that both games are played simultaneously, and neither player has an advantage over the other. If the player who's playing second against you is accepting a loss and just trying to get base hits on you, nothing prevents you from doing the same, or just trying to beat him in both.

Necrocat219 · (06-09-2014 02:14 PM)

(09-01-2012 09:59 PM)awpertunity Wrote:
(09-01-2012 07:21 PM)Ravernoth Wrote: Base health isn't a very good indicator as it can be a long dragout fight with the loser having a heavy and soldier 1 turn away from winning.

How does this help the winner? If the winner keeps his opponent's base health at 1 HP? It's the winner's base health that determines the points, and the winner cannot heal his base so dragging the game on can only hurt.

(09-01-2012 08:03 PM)Necrocat219 Wrote: So... if I win the first game with 5 base health, then I spawn a lot of runners and aim to just do 1 damage to the opponent base, I automatically win the second game as soon as I damage the opponent base? This doesn't seem like a better tiebreak than a third game to me. :/

Sure, if you win the game fast enough? The point is that both games are played simultaneously, and neither player has an advantage over the other. If the player who's playing second against you is accepting a loss and just trying to get base hits on you, nothing prevents you from doing the same, or just trying to beat him in both.

I think you've misunderstood, ravenorth was talking about preparing an OTK threat, and the example he gave would have been a base race with no harassment on the enemy base.

Also, if you're losing, you're lowest priority by far is harassing the enemy base, which is what your basing this tiebreak on, you should be aiming to conserve wits rather than using them to attack the enemy base, so I hope you see why Im concerned about it and tried to give that example ^^''

PS why would the speed of the game affect when you attack the base? I only damage it when I'm on the offensive

Ravernoth · 09-02-2012, 12:10 AM

(09-01-2012 09:59 PM)awpertunity Wrote:
(09-01-2012 07:21 PM)Ravernoth Wrote: Base health isn't a very good indicator as it can be a long dragout fight with the loser having a heavy and soldier 1 turn away from winning.

How does this help the winner? If the winner keeps his opponent's base health at 1 HP? It's the winner's base health that determines the points, and the winner cannot heal his base so dragging the game on can only hurt.

(09-01-2012 08:03 PM)Necrocat219 Wrote: So... if I win the first game with 5 base health, then I spawn a lot of runners and aim to just do 1 damage to the opponent base, I automatically win the second game as soon as I damage the opponent base? This doesn't seem like a better tiebreak than a third game to me. :/

Sure, if you win the game fast enough? The point is that both games are played simultaneously, and neither player has an advantage over the other. If the player who's playing second against you is accepting a loss and just trying to get base hits on you, nothing prevents you from doing the same, or just trying to beat him in both.

Sorry I didn't mean the winner would drag out the game, I meant a hard fought 50 turn match may have the winner still with 5hp even though it was a close match and the loser was close to winning as well.

qkid21 · 09-02-2012, 02:40 AM

quenson21
AUS
master/290/2435

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 04:21 AM by CombatEX.)

I feel that points should be based more on game wins than on base health. The fact that winning a match can yield such a huge range of points seems off. I propose that instead of making the points for winning, drawing, and losing so broad, we should make them narrower and always make winning better than drawing.

Current System
Point ranges:
W (2-0): 3 to 11
D (1-1): -5 to 5
L (0-2): -11 to -3

Proposed System
Point Ranges:
W (2-0): 6 to 8
D (1-1): 2 to 4
L (0-2): 0

Explanation:
You get a fixed number of points for the match result:
W (2-0): 5 pts
D (1-1): 2 pts
L (0-2): 0 pts
(I based this loosely on the standard 3:1:0 w/d/l ratio)

Plus you get points based on your remaining base health:
+1pt for 3,4,5 health
+1pt for winning as P2

__________________________________________

Apart from being simpler both for you to calculate and for people to read (no negative points), this way the most important factor is just whether you win or lose more games and not some outside stat like base health (which doesn't really portray who was in control). Anything over 3 health is a good amount since it means you were relatively safe from dying in a single turn (yes, snipers and heavies would do the trick but those are much harder to get in range than a soldier or runner). If nothing else sticks from this suggestion, I'd at least make it so that 3,4,5 health is treated equally. This is especially due to the fact that often times a good player will be willing to take a few points of damage if they know it won't put them in any real danger and will allow them to make a strong move (potentially even winning them the game a few turns down the line).

__________________________________________

(09-01-2012 07:06 PM)RandyDogz Wrote:
(09-01-2012 05:23 PM)CombatEX Wrote:
(09-01-2012 09:17 AM)RandyDogz Wrote: And for full disclosure I reported my total points, not 1x1 only, cause that made a huge diff in p/w too.

Hm, but perhaps you should state your 1v1 points only? I believe that was awpertunity's intention (correct me if I'm wrong of course).

My 1x1 would have been ~450 I think (finished some game since org post) - I wasn't clear on what one to put. My though was safer to overstate rather than under so it wasn't thought I was sandbagging it....

Just rank me last for being a dumbass if that's easier lol

Ah, but over-stating actually gives you an advantage in seeding, not a disadvantage =P

P1noyboypj · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 04:41 AM by P1noyboypj.)

I'm curious. So is it better to forfeit and lose 6-5 than win with 1 point left on ur base (giving u only 2 points)? If all of your other bracket opponents do this against each other and you only manage to win barely win all games, you will be behind in points.
Or is my math wrong?

I think total rounds it takes to win is a better indicator than health left on a base on how a game went.

If we want a true tiebreak, we should just play games in pairs like u suggest and win by 2 (basically win as both sides). This can draw out the games, but at least it's fair. I also suggest choosing maps for each wave of the cup.

Ravernoth · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 09:13 AM by Ravernoth.)

(08-30-2012 10:11 AM)awpertunity Wrote: OUTWITTERS WORLD CUP
Group Play Rules
A match is a pair of games, with each player starting as First Player once on his or her choice of map.

Would you consider randomly assigning maps to the Group stages as well like you did for the knockout stages? That's probably fairest and the best way to minimize maps with FTA.

(09-02-2012 04:29 AM)P1noyboypj Wrote: I think total rounds it takes to win is a better indicator than health left on a base on how a game went.

Yes that was what I was suggesting, if we want to really limit matches to 2 games - could have the player who wins quicker as P2, wins in case of a draw.

awpertunity · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 11:11 AM by awpertunity.)

(09-02-2012 04:29 AM)P1noyboypj Wrote: I'm curious. So is it better to forfeit and lose 6-5 than win with 1 point left on ur base (giving u only 2 points)? If all of your other bracket opponents do this against each other and you only manage to win barely win all games, you will be behind in points.
Or is my math wrong?

No, because that would give you a D which is worth only 1 total point where as the W would get you 3 total points. You may have a smaller Point Differential but that is secondary to total points.

(09-02-2012 04:29 AM)P1noyboypj Wrote: I think total rounds it takes to win is a better indicator than health left on a base on how a game went.

Yes thinking it over I think you and the people saying this are right. The longer a game takes in general, the more hard-fought/closer of a match is must have been. I was just worried that this would lead to a gigantic turtle-fest, but the extra upside is that there will be even smaller chances of a complete tie.

I will try to find a way to use this as opposed to base health...

(09-02-2012 08:23 AM)Ravernoth Wrote:
(08-30-2012 10:11 AM)awpertunity Wrote: OUTWITTERS WORLD CUP
Group Play Rules
A match is a pair of games, with each player starting as First Player once on his or her choice of map.

Would you consider randomly assigning maps to the Group stages as well like you did for the knockout stages? That's probably fairest and the best way to minimize maps with FTA.

The problem I see with random maps in group play is the non-uniformity. This would actually make FTA a bigger problem (what if you get assigned the largest FTA map as P2 and the smallest FTA maps as P1?)

The fair way to do it with be that the map is the same for each group, but I don't really like the idea of playing 6 games on the same map at the same time.

(09-02-2012 02:40 AM)qkid21 Wrote: quenson21
AUS
master/290/2435

290 points and 2435 wins?

or 2435 points and 290 wins? Either way that seems crazy... ?

Okay, I have changed the rules of Group Play to use # of turns taken to determine points as opposed to remaining base health. Please read the new rules. And of course, suggestions and criticisms will be very helpful and much appreciated!

phrenikos · 09-02-2012, 12:14 PM

cherylto
Canada
Rank 19th in top 100

CombatEX · (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 02:54 PM by CombatEX.)

So any thoughts on my suggestion to make 2-0 W always worth more points than a 1-1 D? It just doesn't make sense to me that you can get fewer points for winning more games =/ The goal of Outwitters is to win games right?

Basically I think one should get some base points for a W or D (more for W of course) and that the tiebreaker awards relatively fewer points. The win should be the main point determiner while the tiebreaker is, well, a tiebreaker (gives a few extra points). My suggestion above is still the same even with the tiebreaker being turns instead of health, just modify the bonus points from the tiebreaker.

On a side note, I do like the change to turns over base health =)